PROCEDURES COMMITTEE

Tuesday 12 February 2002 (Morning)

Session 1

£5.00

Parliamentary copyright. Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body 2002.

Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to the Copyright Unit, Her Majesty‟s Stationery Office, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ Fax 01603 723000, which is administering the copyright on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body.

Produced and published in Scotland on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body by The Stationery Office Ltd.

Her Majesty‟s Stationery Office is independent of and separate from the company now trading as The Stationery Office Ltd, which is responsible for printing and publishing Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body publications.

CONTENTS

Tuesday 12 February 2002

Col.

CONSULTATIVE STEERING GROUP PRINCIPLES (INQUIRY) ...... 1315 PUBLIC BILLS (GUIDANCE)...... 1355

PROCEDURES COMMITTEE 3rd Meeting 2002, Session 1

CONVENER *Mr Murray Tosh (South of Scotland) (Con)

DEPU TY CONVENER *Mr Kenneth Macintosh (Eastw ood) (Lab)

COMMI TTEE MEMBERS *Susan Deacon (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab) *Donald Gorrie (Central Scotland) (LD) *Fiona Hyslop (Lothians) (SNP) *Mr Frank McAveety (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab) *Mr Gil Paterson (Central Scotland) (SNP)

*attended

THE FOLLOWING ALSO ATTENDED : Professor David McCrone (Adviser) Andrew Mylne (Scottish Parliament Directorate of Clerking and Reporting)

WITNESSES Bill Anderson (Forum of Private Business in Scotland) Patric k Brow ne (Scottish Retail Consortium) Iain Carmichael (Scottish Enterprise) Roland Diggens (Scottish Council for Development and Industry) Brian Jamieson (Scottish Enterprise) Bob Leitch (Scottish Chambers of Commerce) Alan Wilson (Scottish Counc il for Development and Industry)

CLERK TO THE COMMITTEE John Patterson

SENIOR ASSISTANT CLERK Mark Mac Pherson

LOC ATION Chamber

1315 12 FEBRUARY 2002 1316

Scottish Parliament open, transparent and accessible manner in which the Parliament operates. It is particularly appreciated that that manner compares favourably Procedures Committee with the more formal and less open consultative processes that are often used at Westminster. Tuesday 12 February 2002 Our members believe that Scottish parliamentarians are more open to the arguments (Morning) that are presented by the business community. It is recognised that the Parliament‟s procedures [THE CONVENER opened the meeting at 09:31] give industry bodies such as ours more of an opportunity to present the concerns of the industry with a view to their being addressed. Clearly, in Consultative Steering Group many respects the Scottish Parliament is still a Principles (Inquiry) work in progress. Over time its processes and procedures will develop, as they have done during the past two and a half years. The Convener (Mr Murray Tosh): Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the third meeting We feel that the Parliament could try to improve this year of the Procedures Committee. This is our a number of operational areas, to give civic umpteenth meeting on the consultative steering Scotland—the business community in particular— group principles inquiry, which is rapidly becoming more of an opportunity to embrace the Parliament the parliamentary equivalent of “The Mousetrap”. in its operation. We have a concern about some of This morning we have trapped representatives of the time scales that committees apply when they Scotland‟s business and commercial sector. I look seek evidence from groups that are affected by forward to hearing what everybody has to say. We committee inquiries or proposed legislation. Too have received submissions from some witnesses; often, time scales are so tight that they restrict the others will give us a verbal presentation. We will ability of trade bodies to consult fully with their rattle through all the contributions before holding a members in reaching an opinion. general discussion. Judging from the written The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning submissions, many of the issues are points in Committee‟s inquiry into the Tobacco Advertising common. and Promotion (Scotland) Bill offered the most We will start with the initial comments of Pat recent example of that. The SRC was given a few Browne, who is from the Scottish Retail weeks over the festive period—the busiest time for Consortium. retailers—to supply a response on the impact that the bill would have on the retail sector. We Patrick Browne (Scottish Retail Consortium): supplied a response and will give evidence on the I thank the committee for giving the Scottish Retail bill to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Consortium the opportunity to give evidence as Committee tomorrow morning. It would have been part of the inquiry into the CSG principles. The better if we had had longer to consult with our Scottish Retail Consortium was launched in April members on how the bill would affect them, so 1999 specifically in response to the creation of the that our response reflected fully their concerns. Scottish Parliament. Prior to the consortium‟s launch, our parent association—the British Retail Prior to the creation of the Parliament, one of the Consortium—had continuing contact with the operational developments that was most warmly Scottish Office on issues that affected the retail welcomed was the fact that parliamentary sector in Scotland. committees would have powers to scrutinise legislation and investigate issues, as well as to It was felt that the establishment of the legislate where that was felt necessary. It is Parliament presented an ideal opportunity to evident, and generally accepted, that those wide- develop a new trade association alongside the ranging powers have not been used as effectively new Parliament and its politicians and to give a as they could have been. specific voice to the concerns of Scottish-based retailers. The Scottish Retail Consortium was one We suggest that part of the reason for that is the of the first trade bodies to be established in heavy legislative agenda of the Parliament, which Edinburgh in response to devolution. drives much of the work of committees. Another reason is the heavy turnover in the membership of I do not propose to restate the contents of our parliamentary committees, which has given detailed response to the consultation. Instead, I parliamentarians less time to build an in-depth will focus on a few key issues that we raised in our knowledge of specific subject areas. As a result, written evidence. Since the establishment of the opportunities for legislative reform do not present Scottish Parliament, it is clear from speaking to themselves as readily as they could do. colleagues and retailers that they welcome the

1317 12 FEBRUARY 2002 1318

The SRC believes that there is scope for that you will forgive us if we have invited too many examining whether it is possible to make the business groups this morning. I am sure that they membership of committees more stable and to will all get their say. give committees more time to discuss a wider Brian Jamieson, the company secretary of range of issues, when considering their own Scottish Enterprise, is next. legislation. The SRC also feels that there needs to be greater co-ordination between committees in Brian Jamieson (Scottish Enterprise): Iain relation to the organisations from which they take Carmichael, senior director of finance of Scottish evidence. Although that was a significant issue at Enterprise, is with me. the beginning of the Parliament‟s operation, the Scottish Enterprise is a non-departmental public fact that the Parliament‟s pre-legislative scrutiny body, which is sponsored by the Scottish powers are working in a more effective way means that perhaps it has become less of an issue. Executive‟s department of enterprise and lifelong learning. We are grateful to the committee for the Groups and organisations from other sectors opportunity to give evidence. I will not repeat the have mentioned that the usual suspects are written submission, which members have a copy invited regularly to the Parliament to give of, but will highlight a few general points from our evidence—apparently on issue after issue. That experience of working with the Parliament during has also been a concern among bodies that the past two and a half years. represent the business community. The Unlike the other organisations that are establishment of the Parliament represents a clear represented at this meeting, Scottish Enterprise is opportunity to reach out to the dozens of smaller trade bodies that are representing Scottish a public body, so our comments are made from that perspective. We have focused on two businesses for the first time and to let them have aspects: accountability and, to some extent, their say. That opportunity has not yet been grasped effectively. accessibility, which we have direct experience of. Both those principles are well evidenced by the Input from a wider range of business groups holding of today‟s session. It is difficult to imagine needs to be balanced by all business an equivalent process at Westminster. As a public organisations being a bit more honest about how body, in a number of ways we are held to account they work with the Scottish Parliament. more regularly by the Scottish Parliament than we Specifically, they need to recognise that they do were when we were subject to Westminster not always have to give evidence on every issue scrutiny. Up to a point, that is evidently a public and that other groups occasionally have more good. We think that the Scottish committee system expertise in particular areas and are better placed has been the greatest success, particularly when to give evidence to the Parliament. committee members have built up a detailed picture of our work. Too often, business organisations seem to say the same things when they give evidence to We have had a number of constructive meetings committees. Instead, one or two business groups with the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning could present the industry case effectively and Committee, which is our principal contact free up time for other groups to give a different committee. Witnesses have told the inquiry that perspective. There are signs that business there is a significant advantage in committee organisations are beginning to carry out critical members gaining experience of subjects and that appraisal of their dealings with the Parliament. that produces stability. The system may mean that committees will ask us more searching questions, As the Parliament approaches the third but that is balanced by genuine dialogue with anniversary of its establishment, our members people with in-depth knowledge of subjects. recognise that although it got off to a tremendous start, the Parliament could improve things in We have contributed to a number of specific areas. I hope that the Procedures consultations and welcome that, particularly in Committee‟s inquiry will assist in that process. I contributing to the work of the Enterprise and will be happy to answer any questions on our Lifelong Learning Committee, which has tackled a response. number of substantial topics. We have contributed to the CSG inquiry and to a num ber of other The Convener: Members will return to many of committee consultations. the points that you made. I hear what you say about the same business organisations always Such activities and the significant increase in being invited. We invited everybody this morning, parliamentary and informal questions to Scottish because we wanted to get at the business sector Enterprise has required additional resource. That as a whole. I am conscious that the committee has is manageable, but my colleagues in the not heard much from the business sector. We parliamentary team have a plea in respect of wanted all organisations to feel that they have the parliamentary questions. If MSPs merely seek opportunity to comment when they need to. I hope information, an informal, direct approach through

1319 12 FEBRUARY 2002 1320 any channel is as likely to produce the information to grasp and measure; we tackled it through the that is required and will be much less labour initiation ratio. If members are interested, my intensive and expensive. colleague Roland Diggens can give statistics. By initiation ratio, we are referring to bills in the past One aspect of accessibility is physical two years, work in progress on bills and where accessibility for the press and public to attend they originated—from the Executive, committees, meetings such as this. However, the fostering of a MSPs or external organisations. The initiation ratio spirit of openness is more important than that. The is evolving as the Parliament evolves, but there Parliament has been successful in that respect should be more members‟ bills and committee and the committees have set a tone of relative bills. informality, openness and approachability. We have found committee conveners and committee clerks to be very helpful. Our evidence mentions 09:45 that the Parliament‟s website has always been We endorse the use of sub-groups in user friendly—our staff access it daily. committees. Recently, we gave evidence to the My comments are informed by previous Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee‟s arrangements whereby we had occasional contact sub-group in the lifelong learning investigation. with Westminster. We rarely had the opportunity to The sub-group came to our office at Chester attend committee meetings and building Street. We brought in 20 to 30 of our members relationships with MPs was difficult, given the and the exercise was useful. We encourage logistics and House of Commons timetables. committees to make more use of sub-groups. Building relationships with the Scottish Parliament The issue of open and closed meetings has has been much easier. cropped up in previous meetings. We think that I am happy to answer questions about our the committee should give clear guidelines to submission. conveners on when there should be closed committee meetings. Closed meetings should be The Convener: Alan Wilson and Roland kept to an absolute minimum and private sessions Diggens from the Scottish Council for must be justified. We understand that there must Development and Industry are with us. Alan be some private meetings, but we think that the Wilson has some introductory comments. number of private meetings is increasing. Perhaps Alan Wilson (Scottish Council for that should be investigated. Development and Industry): The committee Like others, we feel that there should be a listed 26 questions connected with the inquiry on minimum period for organisations to respond to which it sought comment. In response, we have consultations. Sometimes two or three requests a provided 46 paragraphs in 13 pages. day hit our desks and what is relevant and how to The Convener: That will teach us. allocate resources must be decided. Each year, SCDI responds to around 50 submissions—50 Alan Wilson: I had to reread the submission as consultations—not just from the Parliament and it was written over six months ago but, in general, the Executive, but from London and Brussels. We we stand by what we said. The Scottish Council also try to be proactive. We suggest that a for Development and Industry‟s board and minimum of 12 weeks should be available for executive committee—which is our policy group— normal consultations, unless there is something endorsed the paper. There are three members of untoward. the original CSG on the board and the executive— Kenyon Wright, Joan Stringer and Esther I feel strongly that questions were so woolly in Roberton. All have seen the submission and had some early consultations that they could be input into it. I am not sure whether that is good or answered in any way. I do not want to be over- bad, but I wanted to make that point. prescriptive, but we should get a far better feel for what is in the committee‟s mind. In one I have two declarations of interest to make. consultation, we had to translate what we thought SCDI is a founding member of the Scottish was meant by a question before putting it to our Parliament and Business Exchange and I am a members in a survey form. We hoped that our board director. From last week, we have also interpretation was what was requested. We would provided the secretariat to a cross-party group on welcome tighter, more specific questioning, along international trade and investment. the lines of the questioning in this consultation. Like the other witnesses, I do not want to go We like interim reports, which give an through our submission blow by blow—members opportunity to bounce back, reconsider and would not thank me for that—but I will make some progress. We realise that such reports elongate points. time scales, but we welcome them. We found the concept of sharing power difficult There is an opportunity for more working in

1321 12 FEBRUARY 2002 1322 partnership. Like other organisations, we are minister responsible for tourism and the creation of prepared to consult our wide membership on the Scottish Executive environment and rural specific issues and feed back responses into the affairs department. system. Committees should take such In our view, the committee system in Scotland is opportunities more often. better than the committee system at Westminster. Finally, the Parliament‟s website has been a Colleagues from England who have attended substantial success. We have made some committee meetings here have confirmed that. technical suggestions, but it is excellent. However, we are surprised that in a Parliament that avows open government and transparency so Bill Anderson (Forum of Private Business in many matters are considered by committees Scotland): The Forum of Private Business in meeting in private. Scotland is a fully devolved organisation, based at Stirling University. We are a research-based group Access to MSPs is good and generally MSPs that represents the views of business. We are very accessible. With one or two exceptions, research our members‟ views. ministers have also been accessible. I would like to mention in particular Henry McLeish, when A good example of why we need a Scottish Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, and Parliament came when I received notice of this the current Minister for Enterprise, Transport and meeting from our headquarters in Knutsford, south Lifelong Learning. I see that the former Deputy of the border. I was told that we were giving Minister for Local Government, Frank McAveety, is evidence to the Standards Committee. That present. We always had good relations with him proves that perhaps we know our affairs up here and found meetings very easy. Others have been better than do people down south. less accessible, but we believe that that is not an FPB Scotland welcomed the Parliament. We ran inherent flaw of devolution, but a measure of the a day‟s business seminar to give it a good launch attitude of the person in office. and invited organisations such as Alan‟s. The There have been considerable attempts to seminar was on the challenges and opportunities consult, but too often consultation has not been of the Scottish Parliament. The late Donald Dewar backed up by adequate research. Little attempt was a principal guest speaker and the former has been made to discover what business people Secretary of State for Scotland, Lord Younger, really feel. I am not talking about people like us, was included in the list of speakers. but people who are running businesses at grass- We had high hopes of the Parliament. I am a roots level. Even the consultative process on business person who has long supported tourism was very unstructured. The responses of devolution. I was involved with the committee set tourist service providers—area tourist boards and up under Sir Robert Grieve to draw up the claim of officials—were given equal status with those of right. We were early off the mark in giving support tourism businesses. No attempt was made to find to the concept of devolution. We felt that a out what the consumer—the tourist—feels. In the Scottish legislature would be more aware of end, the whole matter was handed over to a firm Scottish business and of its impact on the Scottish of consultants whose recommendations were not and local economies. A Scottish legislature is based on any consensus of opinion. For example, more likely to understand the importance of we believe that the retitling of the Scottish Tourist tourism to the people of Ardnamurchan than a Board as VisitScotland had little support in the legislature the overwhelming majority of whose tourism industry. Having said that, the fact that we members have never heard of Ardnamurchan or of are here today, giving our opinions to the the Procedures Committee. Procedures Committee at its invitation, says a great deal about the committee‟s attitude towards Has the Parliament lived up to our hopes and open consultation. expectations? The Scottish Parliament has tackled a backlog of necessary legislation. In some We are concerned that some ministers appear people‟s views, it has enacted legislation that was to be all too ready to accept opinions rather than not urgent, but that is a matter of opinion. The properly researched facts. We are concerned that, Parliament has led the rest of the country on such on occasion, they have accepted the opinion of an matters as freedom of information and access to individual or a small group of individuals within an the countryside. However, we still have organisation, without any proof that that is the reservations about section 9 of the Land Reform properly researched opinion of the majority of (Scotland) Bill, which could be damaging to certain members of that organisation. parts of the tourism industry. We are also concerned that an opinion is There are also some welcome innovative sometimes accepted because that opinion comes ministries. We welcome the fact that enterprise from a bigger organisation, without the quality of and lifelong learning have been combined in one the statistics, the facts and the argument having department, the recent appointment of a separate been examined. We cite a recent dispute between

1323 12 FEBRUARY 2002 1324 the Confederation of British Industry Scotland and the same job. We have had to deal with three the Federation of Small Businesses about which different finance ministers on business rates body had more members than the other. Such matters. issues are superfluous to a consideration of the We are not at all opposed to the concept of merits of, and the facts behind, the respective devolution. We accept it as an opportunity and a arguments of those organisations on business challenge. We regret that some hopes and rates. What matters is the quality of the argument, aspirations remain unfulfilled because of the rather than the clout—or imagined clout—of the failures and shortcomings of individuals. There organisations concerned. have been some failures, but also some What should happen was exemplified at successes. It is important that we learn from our Westminster, when in 1998 the new Labour failures, and the first step towards doing that is to Government chose to accept the advice of the acknowledge them. The very fact that we are here smaller Forum of Private Business in enacting today bodes well in that regard. legislation on late payment that was hotly opposed The Convener: My SNP c olleagues were by the larger Federation of Small Businesses. As a delighted by your reference to Robert the Bruce. I result of that legislation, the United Kingdom is will do my best to restrain the former ministers on now near the top of the European prompt-paying the committee when we come to questions. league, instead of languishing somewhere near the bottom. That is proof of the wisdom of the Mr Gil Paterson (Central Scotland) (SNP): I Government‟s decision. We do not see in the think that all Scots would be proud of Bill Scottish Executive the confidence to take similar Anderson‟s statement about Robert the Bruce. steps. Susan Deacon (Edinburgh East and We have concerns about the quality of some of Musselburgh) (Lab): Absolutely. the advice that ministers are given by their civil servants. Past experience leads us to believe that The Convener: I thought that SNP members would be particularly pleased by it. the best ministers are often those who are prepared to examine critically the quality of the We will now hear from Bob Leitch, who is the official advice that is given to them and, if parliamentary officer for the Scottish Chambers of necessary, to take a different line. The quality of Commerce. the Scottish Executive depends not only on the calibre of its ministers, but on the quality of the Bob Leitch (Scottish Chambers of advice that they are given. Commerce): I am grateful for this opportunity to appear before the committee. Many of the highest-calibre politicians in Scotland—Gordon Brown, Robin Cook, Helen Having heard the evidence that was given by the Liddell, Ming Campbell, Malcolm Bruce and Alex previous witnesses, I should probably say, “Ditto, Salmond, to name but a few—have chosen to ditto, ditto, ditto” and then be quiet. However, I will remain at Westminster, rather than to give set out the views of our organisation, because it is leadership to a Parliament of which they were important that they be heard. outspoken advocates. That contrasts with the I start from a rather biased position—as the historical precedent of Robert the Bruce, who was parliamentary officer for the Scottish Chambers of allegedly the richest man in England when he Commerce, I would not be sitting here today if succeeded to the earldom of Huntingdon. He there were no Scottish Parliament. The Parliament forfeited that title, and then lost his Scottish is new and it is developing and growing. I will take estates to Edward I when he decided that his that into account in my comments this morning. future lay in Scotland. Scottish Chambers of Commerce is involved Ministers‟ lack of even junior ministerial with the Parliament at three levels. At Executive experience has had a significant effect on their level, our director has face-to-face personal performance. We must ask whether all the present contact with most ministers. My responsibility is to Scottish Executive ministers would have gained liaise with the Parliament at committee level; since even junior office under any previous Secretary of the Parliament was established, I have been State for Scotland. It is a well-known adage that a involved with a number of committees. Last—but rolling stone gathers no moss, but we do not by no means least, because we are a bottom-up believe that ministerial experience can be gained organisation that is based in local communities— with constant changes in portfolio. For example, the chief executives of chambers of commerce Angus MacKay was hardly in his job a year before throughout Scotland and I, as the parliamentary being removed. The ministers who have served officer for the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, longest have gained visibly in experience and are involved locally with the members who performance. Business organisations also find it represent us at Holyrood. difficult to have to deal with different individuals in

1325 12 FEBRUARY 2002 1326

10:00 be proactive, and we consciously encourage our I shall deal first with the Executive level, at which members to recognise that. we feel we have free and open access. We have I have a few general points to make. We are regular formal and informal access and we are pleased with the openness of the Parliament and invited to consult formally and informally on all we feel that we are more engaged with the sorts of subjects. However, there is regularly—if process than we are at Westminster or in not too often—written consultation and we Brussels. We have regular meetings in those sometimes think that we are in the middle of a places, but they are often distant, non-participative blizzard in which paper is flying around us like and non-productive. What happens here is much snow. We have criticisms about lack of control and more valuable. Nonetheless, we are concerned the filtering of consultation. It would be useful if about the great misunderstanding and lack of there were some sort of filtration system, so that knowledge in the public sector and sometimes in the various consultations could flow out acceptably the private sector—and among the public—about and manageably for those of us who are more what are reserved and what are devolved matters. than keen to participate and to respond to them. I confess that I carry a list of those matters in my One of my colleagues mentioned a period of 12 briefcase so that, when I am involved with such weeks for responses to consultations, which issues, I know where I should or should not stand seems to be reasonable. on them. At the committee level, much of our work in the On accountability, we are also sometimes Parliament has—through our involvement with the concerned about the level of MSP involvement in local economic forums and the lifelong learning some of the Parliament‟s committees, in which not review—been with the Enterprise and Lifelong all members participate fully. Although we feel that Learning Committee. We have also worked with the Parliament encourages participation by the Local Government Committee, the Rural questioning, we have some doubts about the Development Committee and the European value of question time in its current form. We are Committee. Our experience has been good and— even more concerned about the amount of time it in particular—the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning takes to get an answer to a written question or a Committee has been receptive, interested and reply to correspondence. No doubt there are responsive to our comments. The committee resource constraints; however, if the problem is system is good because it provides access to not addressed, the credibility of the Parliament will policy creation and legislation development. It has be put under strain. allowed us to give the business view and to offer input when and where that is relevant. On accessibility and openness, we are keen— despite the cost—for committees to make local One of the major downsides to the committee appearances where that is practicable and where system is the number of committee items that are it will allow our members to get an active feel for discussed in private and the short notice that is what the Parliament is doing; such visits are worth given of that. I have worn out perhaps two pairs of while in that respect. The website has also helped shoes climbing the Mound to get here only to with the openness and transparency of the discover that two thirds of a committee meeting is Parliament. Finally, we feel that the Parliament, to be held in private. Like other organisations, we the Executive and the members are enthusiastic understand the need for private meetings, but it and are working hard to create openness. We would be helpful to us all if those were better must also play our part, and our commitment to organised and better publicised. It would be even seeking information is imperative if the Parliament more useful if private and public committee is to succeed. meetings were held separately. The Convener: Thank you very much. I shall Locally, through reviews of chambers of kick off the questions. Quite a few of the commerce around the country, we have found that presentations touched on the interface between individual MSPs have shown varying levels of the Parliament, the Executive and the people who interest in and commitment to local business come to committees. We would like to hear issues. Their involvement varies widely between whether business in general, as well as specific the 20 chambers that stretch from Lerwick in the organisations, feels that its engagement with north to Dumfries in the south. It appears that committees has been worth while in the sense that relationships are best where local chambers are its contribution to committees has influenced proactive. However, there can be a perception that reports that have in turn influenced the legislative many MSPs are not interested in the business programme and the development of policy. Is the view but are totally public-sector oriented despite Parliament an effective method whereby you can the fact that the business sector creates the influence what is happening in Scotland? The wealth and jobs that keep Scotland plc running. central issue for the committee is whether the We accept that there is an obligation on our part to Parliament is able to relate to civic Scotland, to

1327 12 FEBRUARY 2002 1328 business groups and to pressure groups in order Roland Diggens (Scottish Council for better to shape the country for the future. Is your Development and Industry): Earlier, the involvement worth while? committee talked about the Executive‟s ability to control the main flow of legislation and activity in Patrick Browne: The honest answer is that our the Parliament. The SCDI might therefore feel that experience is mixed. I have no doubt that the it must keep in close contact with what the evidence that we have given to parliamentary Executive—as a separate body from the committees has influenced the final views of the Parliament—is doing. It is also worth our while to committees on certain issues. It is much more keep in touch with the parliamentary committees. difficult to say whether we have been successful in Local economic forums were set up as a result of influencing the wider legislative agenda. There are the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee‟s issues that we would like parliamentary inquiry into local economic development. We are committees to examine, but because so much of concerned about the Parliament‟s ability to initiate their work load is determined by the legislative legislation and inquiries. It is important that programme and because they carry out committees have the time to do that. investigations into other issues—as they are entitled to do—they do not have the time to The Convener: Although I do not see any of the consider our issues and to respond to our Scottish Enterprise representatives waving at me concerns. One such issue is business crime, to speak, the question is relevant to them. Scottish which costs the business community in Scotland Enterprise has direct links to the Executive and it £700 million a year but which is not being would be useful to know what role the Parliament considered by the Parliament. has in influencing Scottish Enterprise‟s dialogue with the Executive. Bill Anderson: It is easy for us to say how our involvement with the committees affects us, but Brian Jamieson: The convener is correct to say the important issue is how it affects our members. that we have a different perspective. The three- The problem is that, because our members are way dialogue between Scottish Enterprise, the much further away from the Parliament, most of Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament the information that they get about it comes from has been successful. The Enterprise and Lifelong the newspapers that they read. The press‟s Learning Committee‟s major inquiries have dealt reporting of what has been happening in the with some weighty topics. We have had Parliament—especially in the committees—has discussions with the committee in Parliament and been very poor. Even the broadsheets have not we have also briefed individual members on reported committee meetings. I wonder how many subjects such as the new economy. There is clear reports of this meeting there will be in tomorrow‟s evidence that the enterprise and lifelong learning newspapers. I imagine that there will not be many. department has taken account of the views of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee—the We have tried to inform our members of what we three-way dialogue influences policy in that way. are doing and whom we have met. Every time we Often, the enterprise and lifelong learning meet a minister, we take a photograph. We do that department will delay a policy decision until that not because we want to put it in the family album committee‟s inquiry, with which we have been and say, “Look, there I am standing next to Wendy involved, has reported. Alexander,” but to show that we have met Wendy Alexander on our members‟ behalf when we Mr Kenneth Macintosh (Eastwood) (Lab): inform them of the result of the meeting. We try to Everyone has mentioned the degree to which their give our members that information; whether they organisations represent their interest groups and read it is another matter. The trouble is that the the ways in which we can interact with the information that they receive is being filtered at business community through organisations or, as several stages, the biggest filter of all being the Patrick Browne said, through “the usual suspects”. national press. There is a difficulty on both sides. Has the Parliament been effective so far in speaking to the Bob Leitch: The question returns us to the business community? Bob Leitch said that there issue of consultation, because it concerns our was a perception that MSPs were not attuned to involvement. The issue is not just about the end business interests. Is enough effort being made to product of our appearing in front of a committee; it contact individual businesses, rather than the is about the important process of our preparing to organisations that are represented here today, do that and involving our members before we do which might or might not represent all the views in that. The benefit to the members—the people the sector? about whom we are concerned—will be greater if we consult them properly, so that they feel that Bob Leitch: The situation varies in various they are giving some input to the committee and communities. I would like to underline the fact that influencing its actions. That is part of the process both sides have a responsibility. The business as well. community has a responsibility to ensure that its

1329 12 FEBRUARY 2002 1330 views are heard so that matters that concern it are large number of MSPs. Like the SCDI, we arrange pursued. However, MSPs in some areas are much quarterly meetings with prominent figures in the more proactive than MSPs in other areas are, Parliament and speak to them about some of the which might be to do with the make-up of areas key issues with which our members are and their constituents, of course. concerned. Previous guests have included Henry McLeish and prominent figures from other parties. Alan Wilson: In the great wave of enthusiasm Our discussions with those people tend to focus that followed the opening of the Parliament, we on issues such as retail crime. organised a couple of sector-led presentations to MSPs. One was for the oil and gas industry and Our contact with MSPs has been reasonably the other was for the chemical and pharmaceutical positive. We have conducted joint events with industry. We learned our lesson early: MSPs do organisations such as the SCDI, for example as a not turn up in great numbers to such events. Since retail briefing with the SCDI that was reasonably then, we have had meet-the-MSP meetings. We well attended—I think by about 15 MSPs. There invite one MSP and up to 30 of our members to are many approaches to working with MSPs and our offices in Inverness, Aberdeen, Perth, organisations must find the one that suits them Edinburgh or Glasgow and we have an informal best. We are reasonably happy with the contact discussion for two hours. That works tremendously that we have had with MSPs. well and facilitates far better bridge building and The Convener: After Bill Anderson speaks, I will rapport. allow Donald Gorrie to ask his question because 10:15 his time is limited. The Scottish Parliament and business exchange Bill Anderson: Earlier, I said that the Forum of has taken a while to get going, but it will be Private Business works by researching the successful in time. An important point was that we opinions of its members. We do not work by did not want the scheme to be a clone of that having a committee make up policy on behalf of which runs in Westminster. The exchange is open the mass of members. The membership makes to organisations as well as to companies, which is the policy through referendums and opinion polls; important. It is open to MSPs who want to we feed the results of that back to the Parliament. interface with Scottish Enterprise, universities, Committee members will have seen the policy small and medium-sized enterprises and trade briefing notes that we send around, which are unions rather than with only blue-chip based on the research that we do on our organisations. A few weeks ago, a shock-horror members‟ opinions. headline announced that only about 14 members It is difficult for us to get feedback about whether had signed up, but I thought that that was a our members feel that we are making the points miraculous number, given that the exchange is in correctly to MSPs, committees and ministers. its infancy. However, we got feedback from members in Mr MacIntosh: The press has highlighted the relation to the tourism survey that we conducted. fact that MSPs‟ attendance at business functions They said that they were pleased that we were is not what it could be, so I am interested to hear forcing the issues that they had brought to our you say that you have started inviting only one notice and that they felt that the exercise had been MSP to meetings. a success. I know that the Scottish Retail Consortium— The process of consultation takes a lot of Patrick Browne‟s organisation—has had more organisation; however, it is important that we do success in attracting MSPs to its meetings, but I not represent our personal points of view, but think that that is because you hold your meetings those of our members. in Marks and Spencer and have nice sandwiches Donald Gorrie (Central Scotland) (LD): I available. apologise for the fact that I must leave the meeting The Convener: That will be tomorrow‟s soon, especially as some of the witnesses‟ soundbite. submissions have commented on the way in which members come and go, and other problems Mr MacIntosh: What has the Scottish Retail arising from poor attendance. However, the Consortium done successfully that Scottish committees‟ timetables sometimes clash and Financial Enterprise and the SCDI have had members must divide their time. difficulty with? Can you give the committee examples of Patrick Browne: A distinction must be drawn occasions on which you have succeeded—either between political events and social events, such by lobbying the Executive directly, or by going as the Scottish Retail Consortium‟s annual through a committee—in altering Government parliamentary reception, which is relatively policy, in altering legislation, or in getting successful and secures the attendance of a fairly legislation through the Parliament? If you found

1331 12 FEBRUARY 2002 1332 that committees were too busy, would you because we put forward a good argument and we consider finding interested members from different explained what would go wrong with a threshold parties and working with them informally so that scheme. As committee members will be aware, we they could either lobby the Executive or propose a are having some difficulties now because most of bill? You have identified the problem of the debate is being conducted through the press committees‟ time being blocked. What is your rather than through meetings. However, the rates experience of that and how might you get round relief scheme was another success for us. the problem? We feel that at least some members are Bill Anderson: The Forum of Private Business listening. We are getting somewhere, which can give some examples—one of which is to the makes it worth while—it at least justifies Bob credit of Donald Gorrie‟s party. Before the first Leitch‟s job and my job. meeting of the Parliament, when the Food The Convener: That factor is not Standards Agency was being set up, there was— inconsiderable, I am sure. can I now say this?—the daft idea that everybody who handled food in any way whatever would Alan Wilson: Determining whether have to pay the same flat charge. The little village effectiveness is demonstrable or whether the shop and the little corner shop would pay exactly exercise is just cosmetic and pays lip service to the same flat charge as, for example, the Tesco the democratic process is complex. In any hypermarket outside Inverness. The whole submission that we make, there may be 20 or 30 concept was daft. Enough support for that to be recommendations. If two or three of them are changed came about only because of a question alluded to in the final document, that is sometimes that was asked by the then MP for Argyll and Bute, deemed a success. Ray Michie, which established that the rules in Getting retail prices index capping for business Scotland would be set by the Scottish Parliament. Because the Liberal Democrats were—with the rates—when Jack McConnell was involved—was a success. It may sound a small success, but it Conservatives and the SNP—prepared to support came about through pressure from many different the idea of not levying a flat charge, it was obvious that the idea would not succeed in Scotland. The groups. Sarah Boyack withdrew proposals on Government therefore dropped the idea. The fact workplace parking because of tremendous pressure from many organisations. Whether or not that the Scottish Parliament was imminent led the the M74 extension has progressed because of Government to change its mind. pressure from business groups we do not really I did not mention previously that we find the know, but at least it has progressed. It is difficult to balance of MSPs in the Parliament good to deal demonstrate effectiveness. That is why with. We know that we will not find an unthinking organisations such as those that are here today block of MPs as we find at Westminster. There is a can usually get more done collectively than they balance that gives us a chance to turn things can individually. around. Roland Diggens: I want to discuss private Another example is to do with business rates. meetings of committees. Evidence has suggested Donald Gorrie was very much involved with the that part of the reason for having private meetings matter, as were Gil Paterson and Fergus Ewing. is to discuss what evidence will go into reports. It There was a move to replace transitional relief is difficult for organisations to know how effective with a small business rates relief scheme, but I will they are if they are not allowed to hear discussion not go into the technicalities—Frank McAveety will of their evidence and discover which of their be aware of what happened. We said that there arguments were deemed more acceptable. The had to be transitional relief. We campaigned for same argument applies to Executive that, and we got it. There was a transitional relief consultations. A lot of the evidence that is scheme and a small business rates relief scheme. submitted in consultation exercises is discussed We were against the idea—we still are—of behind closed doors. thresholds in the small business rates relief scheme. There should not be a scheme in which a Donald Gorrie: The Parliament gets a lot of criticism for being secretive but, as you said, most person on one side of the threshold gets 50 per of the private business in committees is to do with cent relief, while a person on the other side gets nothing, or perhaps has even to pay a surcharge. drawing up reports. You are arguing the benefits of exposing such discussion to the public gaze. That would be daft. The issue was taken up at the Some people in this establishment feel that that Local Government Committee—by Donald Gorrie among others. Keith Harding gave us good could lead to grandstanding and could introduce more political in-fighting, when what the support as well. There was good cross-party committees seek is consensus, which is best done support for our position and, in the end, the idea of a stepped or graded scheme was accepted by the in private. The issue is difficult and I am not saying that you are wrong. How do you feel about it? Local Government Committee. That came about

1333 12 FEBRUARY 2002 1334

Roland Diggens: We accept that the issue is committees who work hard to put reports together. difficult, but we are discussing the principles of the It would not make their lives easier for reports to Parliament. In principle, it is right that MSPs, as be debated in public session. However, the CSG elected representatives, should have their debates principles call for openness, accountability and and discuss evidence in open session. I accept participation. Public committee meetings are a that that could lead to grandstanding—or very important part of that. “posturing”, as I heard it described at a previous Brian Jamieson: I am more sympathetic to the meeting—but discussing reports in public has not view that was outlined by Donald Gorrie and really been tried. We seem to be moving away Kenneth Macintosh. The CSG principles from it before we have even given it enough time. encourage openness and transparency, but they The Convener: A difficulty arises if committees also seek what is sometimes described as a new are given evidence confidentially. The Enterprise form of politics. As has been said, it is difficult to and Lifelong Learning Committee was given a lot achieve a consensual report at a public meeting at of evidence for its report on rural fuel prices on the which members are arguing from clearly defined basis that the information would remain political positions. There is a good argument for confidential, which influenced the whole holding meetings at which reports are finalised in discussion and the report. Another example was private, so that an agreed view can be arrived at. the information on private finance initiatives that The Procedures Committee has taken evidence the water companies gave to the Transport and from a number of people who have argued that the Environment Committee for its water report. A there are too many private committee meetings. I policy of always disclosing can create difficulties. am not as convinced by their arguments as some Bill Anderson: I would like to back up what of my colleagues are. Roland Diggens said. In my presentation, I Bob Leitch: I have some sympathy with the mentioned that too many discussions are held in view that members have outlined. All of us in private in what is supposed to be an open business realise that there are times when things organisation. Discussions should be more open. have to be done privately and other times when Private discussions should be the exception rather things have to be done publicly. We all agree that than the rule. At the moment, if there is any doubt, it is important that the Parliament should be discussions are held in private. I say that the transparent and open and we all agree that the reverse should be the case: if there is any doubt, Parliament is more transparent and open than any discussions should be held in public. other Parliament with which we deal. It is It is not only the decisions on reports that important that the Parliament should work to make concern us. The Local Government Committee‟s itself even more open and transparent, so that we first report on small business rates relief was very can have even more confidence that it is. That is quickly made public, but the second report was why I said in my opening remarks that private kept under covers. I have never seen the second meetings should be organised further in advance report. and that the results of such meetings should be reported more openly. That would give us Mr Macintosh: All today‟s witnesses—and confidence in the reasons that are given for witnesses at previous meetings—have said that holding meetings in private and would enable us to private meetings are seen as obstructive and accept private meetings more readily. We need to secretive. They certainly do not aid transparency. examine closely the thin red line between public Witnesses have also said that the information that and private meetings. It is important to all of us is available to the business community—and to that we get the division absolutely right. the wider community—is often filtered, especially through the press. The Convener: “Thin red line”—that is a feed for Frank McAveety. One could argue that, when a report is discussed in committee, press coverage is bound Mr Frank McAveety (Gla sgow Shettleston) to focus on arguments rather than points of (Lab): Five years ago, the business community consensus. That is one reason why meetings are had concerns about the establishment of a held in private. If all meetings were held in public, Scottish Parliament. Have any of those fears been debates in committee would end up like debates in confirmed, or has the Parliament begun to the chamber, which are more confrontational than overcome them? either public or private debates in committee. Do Patrick Browne: The Scottish Retail you have any sympathy with that point of view? Consortium supported the establishment of a Scottish Parliament as part of a process of 10:30 devolution throughout the UK, despite the fact that Roland Diggens: We have sympathy not just we had reservations. Some of our concerns with MSPs, but with clerks and the staff of related to the difficulties that could result from

1335 12 FEBRUARY 2002 1336 having different legislation in Scotland on some of that we have now. the more operational aspects of retailing, such as It is so much easier here. If a meeting is food hygiene. In the main, those concerns have required at Westminster, it is necessary to contact been unfounded. The Scottish Parliament and the MPs and arrange it a long time in advance; here, I Scottish Executive have introduced regulations in have only to pick up the phone. I was amazed line with other parts of the UK, so the problems recently when I wanted to speak to Kenny have not come to pass. MacAskill about a point that he had made and to On other issues, such as business rating, the give him some facts. I phoned him on a Friday— response from the Executive and the Parliament no MP at Westminster would be contactable on a has been positive. Generally, we are satisfied with Friday—and there he was. I met him within half an the way in which the Scottish Parliament and the hour of phoning him. The situation is ideal. The Scottish Executive have operated. The problems Parliament works and it is on our doorstep. that we foresaw have not arisen over the past Nevertheless, as someone who has operated three years, although there are signs of different principally from the north of Scotland for 20 lines being taken on some issues, which might years—I insist on doing that as well as having a become more of a problem over the next base in Edinburgh—I remind members that an parliamentary session. Up until now, we have awful lot of Scotland is not in the central belt. If been reasonably satisfied. there are to be consultation meetings at the Bob Leitch: I endorse that view. In general, we Parliament, they should be held not at 9 o‟clock in are more than happy with what we have found. the morning, but at a time when people can get Our involvement is greater and we have closer here on the train from Inverness or Dumfries. It is contact with the Government in Scotland than we important not to forget the outlying parts. Scotland would have had. Although we are, ultimately, part is not the area between Edinburgh and Glasgow; of a UK organisation, we did not have such a close there is an awful lot of Scotland elsewhere. relationship with the Government in the past. The Alan Wilson: I remind members that the SCDI change has been to our advantage. It is important was a member of the Scottish Constitutional that we are proactive, but members also have a Convention. We had to tread quite a delicate path responsibility to be proactive towards business. As because—as in most organisations—some of our we grow and develop, we are getting more members were for a Scottish Parliament and involved with the Government and the exercise is others were against it. worth while for us. The Scottish Parliament has been a plus. The thing that makes us just a little bit different is that our membership includes large and small Bill Anderson: The small business sector did companies, the further and higher education not have many misgivings. A review that was sectors, local authorities, trade unions and the conducted by The Herald showed that opinion in voluntary sector. That is a very wide constituency. the small business sector was evenly split Our activities led to the dissemination of between those who were for and those who were information and the encouragement of debate, against a Scottish Parliament. I was involved in which undoubtedly leant in favour of the getting the names of the people who contributed to Parliament. that review. Comparing the present situation with the The situation was not the same in the big situation five years ago—when we had to deal with business sector, where people tended to be the Department of Trade and Industry, the against the idea of having a Scottish Parliament. Treasury and other departments—is like Some of the misgivings were about political comparing day and night. The present situation is posturing. The Scottish Chambers of Commerce much better—it is far more involving. We have carried out another useful survey just before the been rejuvenated. 1997 election, which showed a softening of approach. The smaller the business, the softer its Mr McAveety: I welcome those contributions. approach to the idea of a Scottish Parliament. Five years ago seems like another time in history. I wonder whether Bill Anderson‟s comments about We must differentiate between the failures of the ministers detract from his complimentary system and the failures of people. We all fall short contribution. I wonder whether he would have of the standards that other people expect us to been brave enough to make such comments in the reach. The failures that there have been have Westminster system, rather than in the open, often been the failings of individual people rather transparent Scottish system, but that is a marginal than of the system. I agree with Bob Leitch. I have matter. I thank Bill Anderson for the compliment. worked in this area for nearly 20 years. I have worked with Westminster and have had good Almost all the witnesses said, independently, in relations with all political parties, but those their submissions that there should be space for relations were never as close as the relations are legislation initiated by committees. If the witnesses

1337 12 FEBRUARY 2002 1338 were on a committee, what would they legislate that process. It is inevitable that freeing up time for? and giving committees more scope to examine issues will provide the opportunity for legislation The Convener: Pat Browne suggested a retail that will improve the working of the system. crime bill. If anyone else has another idea, let us hear it. Bob Leitch has a suggestion. Mr McAveety: When I asked about legislation, one theme that emerged was less legislation. Alan Bob Leitch: Less legislation. Wilson, I think, mentioned workplace parking The Convener: So you think that a bill to ban charges. That is an issue of self-interest. I do not legislation would be helpful. mean that pejoratively—raising such matters is the legitimate reason why his organisation exists. Bill Anderson: One thing is often forgotten. Business people tell me about all the red tape but, How do we get the balance right? Let us take again, that is a misapprehension. Very little red two issues that folk in different parties have tape originates from the Scottish Parliament or the mooted—workplace parking and retail parking. Scottish Executive. A lot of red tape comes from There would probably be different views among Westminster; even more comes from Europe. the organisations that are represented today— Nigel Griffiths is absolutely right to tackle that. those of large retail outlets at the edge of cities Very little has fallen on the shoulders of small and of small businesses operating on main business as a result of what has happened in the streets. The witnesses will lobby vociferously— Scottish Parliament. I hope that the press note understandably—on behalf of their organisations. that. The issue is how we bring that together with the parliamentary committee system and ministerial The Convener: The press are all scribbling decision making. It is interesting that nobody is furiously up in the gallery. The people from the able to identify clearly a piece of legislation that Scottish Council for Development and Industry they would introduce. might like to highlight the way in which the legislative programme tends to be dominated by the Executive, instead of stemming naturally from 10:45 the parliamentary committees—Roland Diggens Patrick Browne: The issue, again, is not made that point quite strongly in the SCDI paper. legislation per se. A lot of what the Executive does Roland Diggens: That is true. A quick summary is not subject to legislation; it is about how things of the Parliament‟s annual reports for the past few are done. A parliamentary committee that years shows that the ratio of Executive bills to examines a current issue may not have to legislate members‟ bills is approximately 5:1. At present, on it, but it may improve how the system operates. one committee bill is in place and another one is Bill Anderson: Frank McAveety raised a good about to go through. The fact that committee bills point about retail parking and the complaints of are now in the process is a change from the first small businesses in town centres, for example, few years of the Parliament. The SCDI is a big fan that have double yellow lines outside their shops. of the committees and the way in which they work. That is a good example. It is difficult for business Committees are more participative than, for to speak with one voice on a lot of issues, example, a typical debate in the chamber, which because we represent different sectors. involves only MSPs. Currently, there is controversy over small We would like MSPs to have more committee business rates relief. We are one organisation, time available. That would create a better balance, which has a large membership of micro- which would enable individual MSPs and groups businesses that will benefit from such relief. We of MSPs—in committees—to take forward also represent quite a lot of middle-sized inquiries and legislation. businesses and larger small businesses that will Patrick Browne: A business crime bill would not be hit by the scheme. Scottish Chambers of necessarily be the first thing that we would look Commerce covers, more or less, the same area for. and the Confederation of British Industry covers big businesses. One group wants rates relief and There is a need for committees to have more thinks that the situation at present is great, time to scrutinise issues. Opportunities to improve because very small businesses will benefit. the legislative system will present themselves Another group, which represents quality, family- when committees begin to examine issues in more run hotels, for example, is concerned that the depth. During the past 18 months, for example, situation will hit them. The CBI does not want a the Scottish Executive has embarked on a fairly relief scheme at all. There are three distinct points radical reform of the planning system in Scotland, of view, because we represent different sectors which includes matters such as public and shades of different sectors. There will always participation. I am amazed at the limited amount of be that conflict of interest. scrutiny that the Parliament has been able to give

1339 12 FEBRUARY 2002 1340

Alan Wilson must have the same trouble, Fiona Hyslop: Does that mean that the because he has within his membership consultation on policy issues within your field organisations such as ours, the CBI and the comes too late? Do you see committees as having Federation of Small Businesses. It is difficult to get a role in that? a coherent view. In tourism, there is a conflict Bob Leitch: Yes. between the smaller hotels and the big multiples. The Scottish Tourism Forum has to represent that Alan Wilson: It is quite attractive to have open breadth of interest. It is difficult, because there are and closed periods in the passage of legislation, shades of opinion, which differ from each other, although it might lead to bottlenecks and might which is understandable. have a detrimental effect, because there might be fewer chamber events. Those are the things that Fiona Hyslop (Lothians) (SNP): I compliment get televised and publicised, so people might the witnesses on their written evidence, which criticise the Parliament for being less active, which contained practical suggestions. would not be the case. We would be attracted by The witnesses have made the case that the idea if it gave parliamentarians more time to parliamentary committees need more time, not consider policy initiatives, rather than simply necessarily to scrutinise legislation, but to screening legislation. scrutinise policy. We have also touched on the fact Susan Deacon: I want to move on to a different that the witnesses are all representative issue, but before I do so, I have a follow-on organisations and that the time that they need to question. Many different witnesses have made a consult and give a view—or a variety of views, as plea for more time. However, at the end of the Bill Anderson said—can be extensive. The day, a finite amount of time is available to us and, Scottish Retail Consortium mentioned that the to some extent, if more time is made available for time available to examine a bill following its one thing, there will be less time for something introduction is restricted. How do the witnesses else. It is interesting to tease out how we can feel about that? make better use of our time. How do the witnesses feel about consultation on All the witnesses this morning have talked about policy? From the comments, I recognise that a range of different processes that they have used consultation on policy is probably as important for to inform and influence politicians. Some of those business interests as consultation on legislation. methods are informal—you have mentioned that Should we restrict the period when bills and seminars and receptions are opportunities for consultation exercises can be introduced? For people to interact—while others, such as example, should their introduction be restricted committee meetings and meetings with ministers, before Christmas or during the summer? The are more formal. Do those processes add value to comments that have been made are similar to one another, or is there duplication that could be those made by people who are interested in social eliminated? I am particularly interested to know policy—that representative organisations require whether some of the dialogue that you have with time to access their members. ministers and parliamentarians separately could On policy consultation, a justice committee, for be held together. Is there an opportunity for example, might spend a lot of time scrutinising everyone to sit round one table, rather than legislation, but other committees may not. It is holding separate briefings? That would seem to be horses for courses. Is it as important to have time consistent with the Parliament‟s principles of to consult on policy as it is to have time to consult power sharing. Is there any scope for efficiencies on legislation? in our processes, or is everything that has been mentioned today a necessary part of what we do? Bob Leitch: That is a difficult question to answer. One of the things that we have been Roland Diggens: That would be a good idea doing of late with the European Parliament is and we could aspire to that situation. However, in examining future legislation and policy before it is terms of practical issues, from the perspective of fully developed. It would be useful if we could do business and other sectors of the community, it is that here, although I am not sure how consultation very hard to juggle diaries. The greater the would be fed in. One of the problems of all sorts of number of people involved in a meeting, the legislation and policy is that, by the time it reaches harder it is to get the right people to the meeting. A people such as us, if it is not a fait accompli, a series of meetings, rather than one or two large strategy is already in place. We always come in meetings, is inevitable if different sectors are to after the creative part has been done. If there were get their points across. a system in which we could consider the coming Brian Jamieson: I echo that point. Since the attractions, so to speak, so that we could take a Parliament was set up, we have been learning view on those and consult our members before what works and what does not. Things have ideas were set, it would be useful for all of us. changed. Like other organisations, we tried issuing

1341 12 FEBRUARY 2002 1342 blanket invitations, but that does not work. Bob Leitch: I will be brief. It is a matter of Invitations must be focused on the members who horses for courses. We hold different meetings for sit on the committee that is directly relevant to different purposes, but all serve their own purpose one‟s area of work or who have an interest in if they are used in the right context. In our opinion, one‟s area of work. Now our meetings are much that is something that we have to live with. more focused. I agree that everyone‟s diaries are Alan Wilson: I agree with the previous full but, as I said earlier, although it is easier to get speakers. There is no right or wrong way and, in hold of MSPs than it is to get hold of Westminster the present circumstances, we all try to balance MPs, it can still take a long time to set up our approaches by doing different things. Some meetings, even if only a couple of people are people might put more emphasis on one-to-one— involved. or eyeball-to-eyeball—meetings, whereas others We have learned how best to use our time over might put more emphasis on the media and on the period and we are clear about what MSPs communicating to parliamentarians through the want from us and what we can get from them. press. Each organisation has to find the right way From our perspective, access to the minister is a for its own purposes. slightly different issue. The minister has easy MSPs have constituents, but so do all of us. We access to us. must communicate to our members that we are Patrick Browne: The arrangements depend on being active. Whether we are being effective is a the issue. About two years ago, when Jack different question, but the purpose of a lot of our McConnell was Minister for Finance, he embarked communication is to show that we are active. on a series of meetings with the business Susan Deacon: I will move on tangentially, community that involved everyone sitting around although I will stick to my theme of efficiency. My the table to discuss rating issues. Two or three question is for Scottish Enterprise, which is one of such meetings were held, and they seemed be the few public bodies to have appeared before the very effective because the differences between Procedures Committee. Brian Jamieson touched the different groups were teased out. That enabled on the issue of parliamentary questions, which is the minister to crystallise his opinion and to decide worthy of further examination. He mentioned the what he wanted to do. That approach worked well demands that dealing with parliamentary on rating issues. I believe that ministers are questions place on Scottish Enterprise—I am planning to repeat the exercise next week. aware that that is an issue for a range of public Bill Anderson: Lobbying and campaigning are, bodies. As he acknowledged, there is a need to by their very nature, exceptionally inefficient. I strike a balance between openness—getting the believe that it was Winston Churchill who said that information out in a way that is transparent—and democracy is very inefficient but it is the best thing the better ways that he hinted at of skinning a cat that we have. Basically, lobbying and campaigning to achieve that openness. Could Brian elaborate involve repeating one‟s message again and again. on that point? As I said, members of the business group all have Brian Jamieson: Parliamentary questions are, their own constituency but, even within parties, obviously, a legitimate device. In some cases the there are members who have different MSP wants to get the information into the public emphases—some are more interested in how an domain and it is appropriate that they ask a issue will affect urban areas while others are more parliamentary question. That is, however, a interested in how it will affect rural areas. One cumbersome device to use to get information that must also consider the differences that exist they require privately. After the question is asked, between the parties. The meeting that we are to it passes through the Executive, circulates around have next Monday will be useful, but there are looking for a home, comes to us through our shades of opinion within the business community. sponsoring department eventually, and has to be Meeting MSPs eyeball to eyeball is useful. I am turned around often within 48 hours. It is often meeting two of the convener‟s colleagues at lunch difficult to understand from the question what the time and I know that their priorities will be different questioner wants and, by that time, there is usually to those of Tavish Scott and Kenny MacAskill, not enough time to pinpoint the precise essence of whom I met to discuss the same issue. Members the question. of different parties pick up different issues and Although a parliamentary question is a legitimate want different information from me, whereas I device for holding the Executive to account and might want the same information from all getting information into the public domain, very members. However, it would be very inefficient to often it is asked just to elicit information which we gather all MSPs together in one room to get that would be delighted to supply by letter, e-mail or information. It is useful to speak to a group, but fax. Very often a simple phone call to an MSP‟s one notices that there are differences of opinion assistant or researcher can deal in minutes with a within political parties. matter that would take days to deal with through

1343 12 FEBRUARY 2002 1344 the parliamentary question process. sometimes get criticised for being specialists in one area when we are trying to be generalists. That is not to say that we do not want PQs, but the growth in their number has been enormous. Your contact with MSPs can vary. I have not We have had to devote a considerable additional taken a large part in economic interests in the resource to that and it is disproportionate to the Parliament. Most of my contact with your resource that we have used in dealing with organisations has been at constituency level. We consultations and committee inquiries. are trying to improve generalist knowledge, but at the same time we have an intense dialogue on key issues with specialists. To what extent do you 11:00 think that it is helpful for people who sit on The Convener: Have you ever gone back to the committees to have had or to have working MSP who has asked the question and whose experience of the area in which they are purpose is not clear to try to work out what the interested? person is after so that you can give a pertinent answer? My next question is more general and is directed towards everyone. Do you think that you are Brian Jamieson: Indeed, we have done so learning lessons about whether you expect when the question was not clear. Sometimes the everyone to become specialists on economic and information is not in the form that we have asked business issues? To what extent do you think that for. In one case we went back to an MSP—who we have to ensure that everybody has a broad will not be identified—and asked exactly what he base of knowledge? Perhaps we have to be a bit was trying to find out. He replied, “I am not sure. more sophisticated about the level at which and My researcher framed that question.” We are the purpose for which contact is being made. making a plea for understanding when a PQ is appropriate and when the information could be got Patrick Browne: It is helpful for people to have very quickly via a phone call. external interests as well as being MSPs as long as the time requirements of those do not clash and The Convener: I am interested in that, because do not cause a problem. Prior to the establishment it is a fairly common complaint that the questions of the Parliament, one of the business are not clear. I do not think that there is a great community‟s criticisms or concerns was that there practice of clarification. Once the question is in the was a perception that the MSPs who were going system, it seems to grind through and the system to be elected did not have a lot of experience of produces the best that it can produce. business or of the private sector, and there was Iain Carmichael: There are sometimes a series too much of an orientation towards the public of questions on the same issue and it is pretty sector. That has been less of a problem because clear that the questioner is trying to understand of the way that the Parliament is operated. the issue rather than get specific information. That However, we would be concerned that if we were is when a dialogue would be more useful. to restrict people‟s external interests, that private sector experience would be lessened and would The Convener: It would be better to have a make it more difficult for the Parliament to gain briefing for something like that. broad knowledge about wider society. I owe Gil Paterson an apology, because I was It is helpful if there is a balance between both not watching the clock as I should have been and types of experience as long as the requirements of he had to go to another meeting at 11 o‟clock. I one do not conflict with those of the other. think that he has left his question with Fiona Declarations should also be made so that people Hyslop. are aware that an MSP has wider interests and Fiona Hyslop: Gil Paterson sends his that those interests might influence their other apologies, but the Equal Opportunities Committee, parliamentary work. on which he also sits, held back its meeting so that As to whether people should be specialists or he could attend. generalists on business issues, the reality is that He is particularly interested in evidence from the we will never have 129 MSPs who have a high Scottish Retail Consortium on accountability. In level of knowledge about business issues. It woul d written evidence you said that some people be unreasonable to expect that, just as it would be expressed concern about MSPs who continue to unreasonable to expect a high number of MSPs to take part in other employment areas while being have a high level of knowledge of public sector elected members of the Parliament. You also said work. There has to be a balance. that you do not have a difficulty with that as long The reality is that there will be a smaller number as it is declared. I am interested to hear your of MSPs who have the inclination, time and development of that point and any other interests experience to develop knowledge of the business from witnesses. We have to bear it in mind that we sector and economic issues. We should accept

1345 12 FEBRUARY 2002 1346 that, rather than try to force everyone to gain work on the basis that MSPs are generalists and knowledge that they might not want. It is better to that all they are interested in is the justice and allow people to specialise in those areas in which correctness of what we are trying to tell them. Our they feel that they can add the most. briefing notes are never on more than both sides of one sheet of paper. We could make them last Bob Leitch: I agree with that. We have what we for 10 sheets, but we think that it is better that our have and we cannot change that. People come to briefing notes only take up two sides of one sheet the Parliament because they are elected to of A4 paper. represent their area. As a result of that, we get a mixture of people from various backgrounds with The Convener: For the benefit of the Official various interests. That is important to the Report, I should add that Mr Anderson is holding Parliament. up a sheet of A4 paper, on which there is a series of bar graphs. I am sure that Mr Anderson would I agree that there is likely to be a minority who want that information to be on the record. are experienced in business. We have to accept that fact. It is better to use what we have, and Alan Wilson: It is not possible to manufacture encourage those who might not have been the make-up of 129 MSPs. People get twitchy involved in certain types of issue before to get about the composition of the Parliament, saying involved. That would broaden their experience and that it does not include enough people from the might enlighten us on anything else that we could business sector or from other areas. However, as or should be doing that we have not done in the long as some of the principles on gender balance, past. We have to accept that there is a wide for example, are followed, we should not worry too variety of people from different backgrounds and much about that. we have to work with that to get the best out of the Continuity in committee membership is situation for all of us. important. Problems arise when the membership Bill Anderson: I agree with that. We work on chops and changes. For a six-month period, MSPs the assumption that MSPs are generalists and not are expected to be experts on health, education or experts in the field of business. That is a good whatever the subject happens to be. This sounds discipline because, when we present information like a contradiction, but people can specialise and to you, we try to make it short and to the point. For still be generalists. example, we use visual evidence such as a simple I cannot miss the opportunity to plug the chart, which gives the story. You realise that a lot business exchange, which—despite its name—is of research has gone on behind that simple chart; broad in concept. For example, as part of a you do not want to see all the calculations and business exchange, Susan Deacon might attach figures. You want to see the chart because it gives herself to a health board and Frank McAveety the picture straight away. might attach himself to a local authority. I mentioned the Food Standards Agency. When Fiona Hyslop: I am one of the MSPs who we targeted that, we wrote to members of worked in the private sector—in Edinburgh, in my Parliament and picked out examples in their case. There may be more MSPs with different constituencies. We mentioned to the Highland kinds of business background than the media MPs the ridiculousness of the little store in credit. I am one of the MSPs who signed up for the Lochinver paying the same business rate as business exchange and, although I had Tesco in Inverness. That is another issue—justice. correspondence and discussions with the MSPs care about injustice and we care about exchange, I was named and shamed as one of the injustice and we need to get that message across. MSPs who had not signed up for it. I am not sure That was just a simple example—I need not go where the leak came from, but it was not welcome. into technicalities—but the sheer daftness of those two businesses paying the same rate is what got I have a question for Scottish Enterprise. In your the message across. oral evidence, which was particularly interesting, you explored the issues of accessibility and We are frequently surprised that, when meeting openness in contacts with MSPs on subjects that some MSPs, it is sometimes obvious that they are unrelated to committee or chamber work. You know as much if not more than we do and are way spoke about contacts that build up the ahead of us. I suppose that I am possibly meeting relationships between MSPs and organisations the local government or enterprise and lifelong and networks outwith the Parliament. We have not learning spokesperson in each of the parties. received such evidence, which is valuable, from However, when we explain something using a other organisations. Were you surprised at the simple chart, they pick it up quickly and ask for lots level of contact? Is it something that you might of detailed information. build up throughout Scotland? Are there pockets While many MSPs are generalists, there are where such contacts are working well? also specialists. That is welcome but we have to

1347 12 FEBRUARY 2002 1348

Brian Jamieson: We made a conscious effort to Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill—and Parliament‟s build up the contacts. When the Parliament was view. Is that a problem? In practice, there has not still at the planning stage, we began to encourage been continuity of membership. Is that a better our local enterprise companies to build contacts. way of working? Although Scottish Enterprise is not a Roland Diggens: There might be a connection representative organisation, unlike the other to the argument about the number of MSPs on bodies that are represented today, all 12 local committees. It might be more obvious that the enterprise companies in Scotland have business- balance is off in a smaller committee than is the led boards. case in a larger committee. We encouraged the boards to make contacts with their local MSPs and many of them have 11:15 made good contacts. The chairmen of the boards The Convener: I thought that your point about hold meetings every two months to exchange committee size was way off beam. Nearly every experiences of dealing with their local MSPs. That member of the committee is a member of another enables them to spread best practice and—to committee, but most members of the big policy follow up on an earlier question—to discuss what committees are members of only one committee. works best when briefing MSPs on interacting with The justification for that is that it gives members the local economic forums. We aim to do better in time to focus on their principal interest and remit. I our contacts with MSPs. found myself burnt to a frazzle when I was the convener of this committee and a policy We have also made the people who deal with spokesman on a policy committee. At that time, parliamentary affairs into more of a network team. some members were on three committees; I think That means that the members of the team share that Donald Gorrie is still on three committees. their experiences of dealing with MSPs. We are anxious to make contacts at a local level in The reduction in committee size relates not only addition to interacting with the enterprise to the volume of work that committees do, spokespeople from each of the parties. although I realise that it means that there are fewer members to draw on to be reporters. It also Fiona Hyslop: How are we doing? As you allows members to use their time in a more know, the inquiry is supposed to be about us and efficient and disciplined way. On balance, the how well the Parliament is performing. How are present system is better for productive and MSPs dealing with contacts that are made about efficient work. It is a matter of judgment. issues outwith their work on committees or in the chamber? Roland Diggens: I accept that. Part of the thrust of our argument is that more time should be Brian Jamieson: That echoes what I said more available for committees. That might help to offset generally about having access to MSPs. We are some of the issues that you mentioned. finding it easier to make contact with MSPs than we did with MPs, whose movements always Mr Macintosh: The representatives of the SCDI seemed to be out of sync with what we tried to made a helpful comment about the number of organise. My experience was that it was very MSPs that are required to make the committee difficult to get together with MPs. MSPs have system work effectively. Perhaps they should proved an easier audience to target. I am sure that make a submission on the size of the Parliament. there is a learning process on all sides. That would be welcome. Mr Macintosh: I have a question for Alan The Convener: Professor McCrone is the Wilson and Roland Diggens about the continuity of committee‟s adviser and may put questions to the committee membership. One of the CSG witnesses through the chair. recommendations was that committee Profe ssor David McCrone (Adviser): membership should stay the same to allow members to build up expertise. A criticism of Increasingly, business organisations work with different levels of governance. The witnesses that—I am not sure whether it has been made to might not be able to answer this question now, but the Procedures Committee—is that committees can have the wrong balance. For example, it is I wonder whether they have identified examples of best practice in other legislatures. For example, I said that the justice committees are full of lawyers, am thinking about the chambers of commerce in which might be described as going native. I am loth to mention fox hunting, because I promised Germany, which have a different relationship to the legislatures in the Länder from that of the that I would not—however, I must break that Scottish chambers of commerce to the Scottish promise. The Rural Development Committee is full of members with rural interests—certainly more so Parliament. In general, the committee is interested in learning from the relationship of business to than is the Parliament as a whole. Therefore, there other legislatures and Parliaments and in adopting is sometimes a conflict between the committee‟s view—for example, its view on the Protection of best practice.

1349 12 FEBRUARY 2002 1350

Bob Leitch: You are correct that the structure in wondered what tomorrow‟s coverage of this continental countries is different from that in ours. I meeting might be; he suspected that there might cannot answer your question quickly and easily be relatively little. Have any of you issued because we would have to do some research. Our statements to the press about your appearance at experience is mainly with dealing with the three the committee today? Have you released your Parliaments that affect Scotland—the Scottish submissions to the press? It would be useful for us Parliament, the Westminster Parliament and the to get a flavour of the role that you see yourselves European Parliament. We have links and playing in informing debate through the Scottish connections with all those Parliaments, but our media post-devolution. links to the Scottish Parliament and our Bill Anderson: The answer to your direct opportunities to participate are much greater than question is yes. I put out a news release and they are with the other Parliaments. attached our four-page submission to it. After We do not have the legislative back-up for the nearly 20 years of dealing with the press, I feel kind of participation that exists in Germany and that it is always important to get one‟s own story France. To be honest, we do not want that kind of across and not let the story be the media‟s. participation. Our independence from the system Sometimes, it is better to give them too much allows us more opportunity to have an input than information than to give them too little, which may we would have if we were on the paymaster‟s allow them to come back and question things. payroll, which would make it difficult for us to Alan Wilson made this point earlier and I agree criticise and to become involved in issues. We are with him: we use the press as a means of happy to research the system in other countries campaigning, making direct contact and and to report back but, off the top of my head, that lobbying—the whole gamut. My impression of the is our view. broadsheets in Scotland—which should be the Alan Wilson: Roland Diggens has just best informed and most informative about what reminded me that one of his key personal happens in the Parliament—is that, although most development objectives is a secondment to the of the coverage was supportive at the time of the Brookings Institution in Washington. Perhaps I will referendum, it is less supportive now. That may be be better able to answer your question with the because the broadsheets have always knocked passing of time. the establishment. For all their douce appearance, The Scotsman and The Herald are organs that Mr McAveety: It is important that an MSP knock the establishment. Good on them—that is accompanies him on that secondment. part of what they have to do. However, the The Convener: Fourteen have already signed important thing is to ensure that the story that they up and now you have an additional name. As long have is not spun but is the true story of what as foreign travel is involved, Frank McAveety will happens here. go. You are being open in this meeting and I hope Susan Deacon: On a different topic, the media that it is reported properly. Our submission to you have been mentioned oft in our discussions. is critical, but I feel that it is helpfully critical. It says Earlier, Bill Anderson made the valid point that that you have done some good things but that many of his organisation‟s members view the other things are not so good—although the things activities of the Parliament through the prism—or that are not so good are mainly the failings of the filter, to use his word—of the media. It will individuals. The press may pick up on only the come as no surprise to the witnesses that a criticisms and say: “Businesspeople knock recurrent theme has been that many organisation Parliament”—or, in my case, “Forum of Private representatives say that, although they have close Business knocks Parliament”. We did not knock contact with the Parliament, the same cannot be the Parliament—we were trying to come up with said for their wider membership, who depend very objective and constructive criticisms. I hope that much on the media for information. The such things will be reported properly. Parliament clearly has issues of communication to The Convener: I have a fair idea of how consider and we are indeed considering them. tomorrow‟s press might treat some of the Most, if not all, of the organisations represented comments that you have made on the ministers here today have gone through a process of and the Executive. Perhaps I will be proven wrong. evolution and development since devolution, Alan Wilson: That is a challenge. affecting, among other things, their capacity to engage with the Scottish media. As part of the Roland Diggens: The question is a difficult one. broader debate on policy and legislation, is there There are times when the SCDI goes with the flow anything that you would like to share with us about of the press and there are other occasions when your own communication machinery? I am asking we do not agree with what the press are saying. you to do a bit of soul searching. Bill Anderson One of the great benefits of the Parliament is that

1351 12 FEBRUARY 2002 1352 there is a vastly improved line of direct encourage that. As for rent-a-quote and column- communication between the SCDI and members. filling reactions, we could spend our whole lives Although the newspapers are important in agreeing or disagreeing just to get a line in the reporting what the Parliament does, more press. Some people do that, but it is not a important is the scale of contact between us and resource that we would feel was worth while. the Parliament, even if that is mediated by the Occasionally we want to react, but not that press. regularly. I get a lot of comments, sometimes critical, about the balance that the SCDI strikes. Brian Jamieson: Our experience in dealing with However, I could have three people working on the press in recent times has echoed what we that full time and I doubt that the coverage would have been trying to do with MSPs, which is to be much different. It might be greater in cubic have a more open debate about what we do, centimetres but—to go back to the question—it rather than lurid headlines. The question was probably would not amount to a row of beans in intended to elicit what the Parliament can do to terms of demonstrable effectiveness. I do not have a better relationship with the press. I am not know the answer—different debate, different sure how members can take that forward— chamber. “educate” is too strong a word. We have been trying to have an open debate about what MSPs Bill Anderson: We have to face the fact that think of what we are doing. people in the small business sector tend not to read the broadsheets; they tend to read the Susan Deacon: Business is in a slightly tabloids. Even the broadsheets—certainly from the different position from that of other audiences in perspective of small business—make little attempt Scotland because most broadsheet newspapers to give coherent small business news, although tend to contain dedicated business sections. The Herald is doing so. The average small Similarly, there are several publications dedicated businessperson is not looking at the financial to business in general. Do you think that you have pages; they are borrowing money to run or expand more informed coverage of what happens in their business. They want to know what is going Parliament, at least in as far as it affects on in Parliament, but generally speaking they tend business? Perhaps that is an unfair question. I am not to read the broadsheets; they tend to read the just wondering whether it helps to have that tabloids. amount of dedicated attention to business and whether that is reflected in parliamentary 11:30 coverage. The Convener: That is an endemic problem in Brian Jamieson: Certainly the coverage from society. the business columnists commenting on economic Mr Macintosh: The SCDI‟s submission included policy affairs is much more considered than the an especially helpful contribution on the process of coverage on the front pages. We get a more giving evidence. I hope that your experience today genuine debate on the real issues. has not seemed intimidatory or like appearing in Patrick Browne: The coverage that business court. The point has been raised before and we journals give to the policy issues in the Parliament are all aware of it. is limited—it tends towards political journalists who We are not supposed to ask leading questions, are looking for a business angle on a story. but it is difficult to frame a question on this issue Because of that, we probably get worse coverage without doing so. I believe that committees use a than we do from business journalists who are spectrum of approaches when asking for trying to work the process the other way. evidence. We treat individuals with great courtesy, try to involve them and are not antagonistic. At the I hate to be controversial, but the main problem other extreme, we might be aggressive with for the Parliament is that the committee agenda ministers. Business comes between those does not tend to be business oriented, so the extremes; I believe that it comes near the scope for coverage of business policy is more approach that is taken with ministers. limited. Only by addressing that point will the Parliament broaden coverage. I will start with Scottish Enterprise, because, as a member of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Bob Leitch: Since the Parliament came into Committee, I know that as a public body it has had being, there has been more coverage of our a couple of rough experiences. I want to get your views, which is to our advantage. However, I thoughts on the way in which you give evidence at agree that that coverage is greatly restricted and committees. Do committees take an approach that does not always portray a true view. It tends to gets the best from our witnesses and from the pick up on issues that are more attractive to the evidence? eye than attentive to the brain. Brian Jamieson: You mention rough evidence- Alan Wilson: The Sunday papers and taking sessions at the Enterprise and Lifelong magazines take learned pieces and we try to Learning Committee. There have been very few of

1353 12 FEBRUARY 2002 1354 those. Most of the time, there has been a and felt that what we have said has been listened constructive dialogue. The fears about political to. That is important. It is all very nice to have a point scoring have not been realised—such point conversation but, if that is all that it is and we all scoring has been rare in the Enterprise and walk away and do our own thing, it will have been Lifelong Learning Committee. In other committees, rather a waste of time. That has not happened in if there has been a difficulty, it has been because our experience; in fact, our input has had an there is a gulf—or a misunderstanding—between impact. what we are trying to say and the committee‟s To go back to a point that the convener raised, understanding of the position. After any of the the most important issue is consensus politics. meetings that have not gone so well, there has The great thing about committees is that they deal usually been a period of informal contact to try to in consensus politics—we have had a good repair the misunderstanding. discussion with all members of the committee, On the whole, the Enterprise and Lifelong irrespective of their political party. We think it Learning Committee has gone about evidence important that that continues. If we were at the taking in an objective and non-partisan way. That other end of the spectrum and committee has been greatly appreciated. I know that the members were forced into their political colours on atmosphere in some of the other committees has the issues, the discussion would not be nearly as not been the same. I have appeared in front of a beneficial as it is at present. It is important that couple of committees and have found the committees continue to have consensus politics. evidence taking to be conducted courteously, as it has been today. However, I have certainly seen Bill Anderson: On Ken Macintosh‟s point, it is a evidence suggesting that people on public bodies good idea that witnesses should be able to ask feel that they have had an unduly rough time when questions of other witnesses. A good example of they have appeared before other committees. that was when we gave evidence to the Local Building understanding about what one does is the Government Committee. Halfway through, the fire key to that. alarm went off and we all went out into Parliament Square. A group of SNP members cornered me Alan Wilson: Occasionally witnesses should and asked what questions they should ask. One of say, “We don‟t know,” instead of guessing or trying Mr Tosh‟s colleagues in the Conservative party— to give the committee the answer that it might who will remain nameless—came up and asked want. Witnesses might be intimidated not because the same question. I was able to tell them that it of any great fear, but because they might have to was crucial that a particular question was asked at make up policy on the hoof if the committee takes a particular stage. That question was asked, but it them down a tangent that they had not thought would not have been asked if we had carried on about. Witnesses must have their wits about them. and had not been interrupted by the fire alarm. If a committee takes the witness down an avenue—or a cul-de-sac—that the witness does Frank McAveety talked about political not want to go down, the witness might appear posturing—I think that he called it “grandstanding”. defensive and might end up looking a bit lost for Our impression from our dealings with committees words. That point was made to us in our is that there is little political posturing. Most of the consultations with our members. A couple of them time there is a cross-party agreement. If there is felt that the experience had been intimidating and disagreement, it is handled differently and not that they had been playing ping-pong rather than divisively. Our impression is that the shape of the putting forward a view. That has not been the chamber means that people do not think in terms experience of my colleagues and me but we of “the other side of the House”. In the committees included those comments in our submission in particular, our experience is that, if we did not because our members made them to us. know which political party members belonged to, we would not necessarily be able to tell. There is Mr Macintosh: It has been suggested to us that no political division in the committees with which witnesses should be able to interact more with one we have had dealings. another in evidence sessions. In committees such as the Procedures Committee or policy-making The Convener: I am sorry that I have not been committees such as the Enterprise and Lifelong able to arrange a fire alarm for this morning, but Learning Committee, that would be a chance to we will now have a break for three minutes or so. share the power. The process would be far more Before we do so, I thank the witnesses for their participative if witnesses could ask questions of papers, which contained constructive and useful other witnesses. Would you welcome that? points, and for the oral statements and the answers to questions. The session has been Alan Wilson: Yes, I would prefer dialogue to useful and interesting. ping-pong. Bob Leitch: Our experience with committees 11:38 has been good. We have enjoyed our participation Meeting suspended.

1355 12 FEBRUARY 2002 1356

11:46 Although the new procedure for lodging On resuming— manuscript amendments has been in place for only a short time, it has been used quite a lot already—perhaps more than we had anticipated. I Public Bills (Guidance) remember writing in an earlier paper for the committee on this subject that the procedure will The Convener: I reconvene the meeting. The have failed if lodging a manuscript amendment last item of business is a report on manuscript becomes anything other than a last resort. It may amendments and amendments to the guidance on be a little early to say that we are in that situation public bills. Andrew Mylne is with us to address now, but the committee may wish to keep an eye the issues. on the matter in the medium term and to review it after a large number of bills have gone through Andrew Mylne (Scottish Parliament stage 3 under the new rule, in order to see Directorate of Clerking and Reporting): When whether it is working as intended. the rules relating to bills were changed recently in a number of respects, including by the introduction Fiona Hyslop: I will make some general points of a procedure for manuscript amendments at first and then I will make specific suggestions on stage 3, the committee requested that there be an the text of the guidance. addition to the guidance to cover the new I have serious concerns about the use—or procedure. That is what the paper that is in front of misuse—of manuscript amendments. Just before members today sets out. we dealt with stage 3 of the Community Care and The paper contains a number of minor changes Health (Scotland) Bill, I raised a point of order that to the guidance that cover the other changes that dealt not with the content of the manuscript were made to standing orders, but the change that amendment but with the fact that, as Andrew it is important to pay particular attention to is the Mylne said, if the new system is used as a matter new paragraph 4.74. The new paragraph is of course, it will have failed. Our experience of the designed to provide guidance for a convener at past few weeks gives me cause for concern. stage 2 or the Presiding Officer at stage 3 i n When the Procedures Committee considered its deciding whether to allow a manuscript report on manuscript amendments, I suggested amendment that has been lodged to be moved; in some changes to reflect the committee‟s other words, it provides guidance on applying the discussions. I suggested changing the emphasis revised test that is set out in rule 9.10.6. In drafting from a presumption in favour of accepting a the new paragraph 4.74, we have tried to allow for manuscript amendment at stage 3 to a various factors, in particular the fact that the later a requirement that there be sound technical and manuscript amendment is lodged the greater the legal reasons for accepting such amendments. My disadvantage to members and to the public, and changes, which were accepted by the committee, the fact that the disadvantages are greater at were included in the final report that was stage 3, in particular if a suspension of presented to Parliament. proceedings is required. There is a general feeling across the parties that The paper acknowledges that a main reason for we may need to use manuscript amendments at having the procedure that has been agreed to is to stage 3 to ensure that legislation is technically allow bills to be passed without defects. The competent. However, I do not underestimate the procedure is a safety valve for last-minute discomfort and concern that was evident in the problems. In particular, the procedure chamber when a manuscript amendment was acknowledges the point that was made by the debated during stage 3 of the Community Care committee when it examined this issue previously, and Health (Scotland) Bill. The responsible action that there is a case for manuscript amendments for the committee to take would be to ensure that where they are lodged directly in response to we do not allow a free-for-all. If members lodge amendments that were lodged just before the amendments at the last minute, they will allow normal deadline. We have tried to build all those substantive policy debates on manuscript factors into the guidance to give a reasonable amendments to take place. steer to conveners and the Presiding Officer, without being overly prescriptive. We acknowledge I will distil that point into what I think it means for that a wide range of circumstances are involved the text that is in front of us. Paragraph 4.73 refers and have tried to leave a degree of flexibility and to the range of manuscript amendments, starting judgment. with those that are The Presiding Officer has already seen this “lodged just too late to meet the deadline”. paragraph in draft and is content with it. We An amendment is either late or it is not late—the thought that that was important, given that he in phrase “just too late” should not be included in the particular will have to apply the rules. text of the guidance. We should be hard about

1357 12 FEBRUARY 2002 1358 that, because if we do not keep a firm hold of the paragraph is meant to be purely descriptive. deadlines in the legislative timetable, we will allow However, I am happy to re-examine the wording to slippage and end up with a huge number of see whether it would be possible, by making a manuscript amendments that are lodged at the minor tweak, to avoid giving that impression. last moment. I do not think that that would be in Fiona Hyslop: If the word “just” is taken out, the the Parliament‟s best interests. paragraph will be clear. The substance of the issue is covered in Susan Deacon: I support the points that paragraph 4.74. Andrew Mylne has made. Although I agree with The Convener: Let us deal with paragraph 4.73 some of the wider comments that Fiona Hyslop before we move on to paragraph 4.74. has made, I think that that paragraph is purely descriptive and factual. It says exactly what Fiona I want to be clear about what we are saying in wants it to say. paragraph 4.73. If someone lodges an amendment after the deadline, his or her amendment becomes Mr Macintosh: I agree with Fiona Hyslop. The a manuscript amendment. We are not saying that paragraph is intended to be purely descriptive but that amendment would be selected for debate. In “just too late” is a value-laden term. I would infer fact, unless there were a justifiable technical or from it that a prejudicial decision will be made and legalistic reason for accepting the amendment, it that an amendment that is just too late would be would be lodged too late if it were submitted after considered more favourably. I am sure that the deadline, even if—to be blunt—it contained a Andrew Mylne could write the paragraph using new point. It would be a manuscript amendment more neutral language—in fact, he described the that would not be selected. process in neutral language a few minutes ago. Andrew Mylne: In essence, that is the position. The Convener: Fiona Hyslop has suggested All I am trying to do in paragraph 4.73 is to provide that “just” be removed from the paragraph. Without a definition of a manuscript amendment. A considering the matter in depth, it seems to me manuscript amendment is any amendment that is that simply saying “lodged too late” would be a lodged after the deadline, even if it is lodged only more neutral way to put it. The term “just too late” seconds or minutes after the deadline has expired. might be taken as implying that someone might That is all that paragraph 4.73 says—it is not an say, “Och, we‟ll let you off with it this time.” evaluation of manuscript amendments but simply Andrew Mylne: I am happy to re-examine the a description of what a manuscript amendment is. wording. The convener is quite right to say that an The Convener: Are there any comments on amendment that is lodged up to the deadline, paragraph 4.74? which might be 4.30 on a particular day, is an in- time amendment. Amendments that are lodged Fiona Hyslop: Paragraph 4.74 contains after 4.30 are manuscript amendments. The guidance on when manuscript amendments woul d sentence to which Fiona Hyslop referred simply be acceptable. In previous discussions, we agreed makes it clear that manuscript amendments range that we should give credence to the view that we from amendments that are lodged literally seconds should have technically and legally competent after the deadline right through to amendments legislation that makes sense. There is a strong that are lodged seconds before the last point in the argument that, after the deadlines for the proceedings at which they could possibly be submission of amendments, further analysis of the lodged. All manuscript amendments are bill might necessitate the lodging of further encompassed in that range. We do not get on to amendments. the issue of which manuscript amendments should There is concern about the possibility that be allowed to proceed until later in the paper. manuscript amendments might be used to The Convener: Would it help if we strengthened introduce a new policy issue. It is more likely that this paragraph by indicating that, in normal members will use a manuscript amendment to circumstances, an amendment that is submitted counter the submission of an amendment before late will not be accepted unless there are good the deadline on the last day. Although it is open to reasons why it should be accepted? I know that interpretation, that is how I would characterise the that is implicit in the paragraph but, given that this Community Care and Health (Scotland) Bill is public guidance that MSPs might expect to be manuscript amendment. The paragraph talks followed, we would not want to lead members to about adjournments and suspensions. I would be believe that, if they brought their amendments in concerned if the use of manuscript amendments just too late, their amendments would be meant that a number of adjournments took place accepted. at stage 3. I would appreciate procedural guidance on when an adjournment could take place during a Andrew Mylne: It is not intended to create any stage 3 debate. impression about distinctions of that sort, as the

1359 12 FEBRUARY 2002 1360

I would feel more comfortable with the the application of that test. It is not quite correct to paragraph if a change were made to the sentence say, as the convener suggested, that the test that reads: follows on from a decision that has already been made. The test is about how that decision is “In apply ing that test, the convener should begin w ith a presumption in favour of allow ing the amendment to be made. The paragraph states that there should be moved, but w eigh against that the difficulties that reduced an initial presumption in favour of allowing a notice may cause, both to members and to outside parties manuscript amendment, but that its disadvantages w ith an interest in the Bill.” should be taken into account. A lot of the I would prefer it to read: “In applying that test, the paragraph describes what those disadvantages convener should begin with a presumption against are, which arise to a different extent in different allowing the amendment to be moved, but weigh circumstances. The test is about striking a balance against that the benefits that achieving consensus between the disadvantages and something on the and agreement of technically sound legislation other side—and the something on the other side is would bring.” a presumption in favour of allowing the amendment to go ahead. Against that I prefer that balance. It keeps in the idea of presumption, the various disadvantages that apply technically sound legislation and preserves the in relation to a particular amendment in particular opportunity for reaching a consensus, as could circumstances are factored in. have happened with the Community Care and Health (Scotland) Bill manuscript amendment. The fact that the process begins with a However, the current presumption in favour of presumption in favour of manuscript amendments using manuscript amendments skews their use too does not mean that the majority of amendments far to be acceptable to members. will pass the test, as the disadvantages may be many and substantial. However, there must be The Convener: However, that sentence cannot something in the first place against which those be read without referring to the previous sentence, disadvantages are counting. That is why the in which we are told that the convener would paragraph is worded as it is. If things were put the already have made a judgment that the other way round, as you have suggested, the point manuscript amendment was justified in the would be lost. circumstance, taking account of the disadvantages. I do not think that the sentence to Fiona Hyslop: That is precisely the point that I which Fiona Hyslop refers is saying that there is a raised on the wording during the report of the presumption in favour of anything that is lodged as Procedures Committee. That was the balance that a manuscript amendment. It is saying that there is we changed round. The wording in the Procedures a presumption in favour of a manuscript Committee‟s report on this was to say that there amendment that has been judged and seems were disadvantages first and then limited justified in the light of the criteria that would be advantages, most of which were of a technical applied for its selection. legal nature. That is why the committee agreed to the changes before the report came to the Fiona Hyslop: I understand that there is a chamber, and that is the balance. distinction between the criteria for lodging a manuscript amendment and the criteria for We can start with the advantages and then accepting it for debate. A number of amendments consider the disadvantages. The balance of the could be lodged; the issue is whether they should view that I interpret from the Procedures be accepted. Committee‟s inquiry—I have discussed it with members following the first use of manuscript amendments last week—is that the disadvantages 12:00 are the most pronounced. That is why I much Andrew Mylne: There is a danger of confusion preferred wording that talked about a presumption here. A manuscript amendment may be lodged in against, although I recognise that there are the same way as any other amendment. By occasions on which the use of manuscript definition, it is lodged after the deadline, but it is amendments can achieve consensus and it makes lodged in the same way and is subject to the same sense to ensure that we have technically sound admissibility criteria as all other amendments. legislation. I think that we can all agree that that is What distinguishes a manuscript amendment is the main reason for having manuscript the fact that there is an additional hurdle for it to amendments. The problem is that if the wording of overcome after it has been lodged—whether it an amendment is loose—I do not mean that passes the test that is set out in rule 9.10.6 of pejoratively—or suggests otherwise, it is an standing orders. That test is applied by the invitation for abuse. convener or the Presiding Officer. One thing that the committee must do is ensure The rest of paragraph 4.74 is meant to be that we preserve the dignity of the Parliament to guidance to the convener or Presiding Officer on make sure that we have full debate. Members will

1361 12 FEBRUARY 2002 1362 recall that we were in Hawick last Friday night. policy-changing amendment should not be One of the interesting points that was made was allowed. There should be no presumption that last- that people had only three days at stage 3 during minute Executive amendments have any less which they could influence somebody on some of standing than anybody else‟s last-minute these issues. If we allow members only one day, amendments. we are neglecting our duty. The Convener: I disagree with that. We are Mr Macintosh: I agree with the thrust of Fiona entitled to see an amendment lodged by the Hyslop‟s argument. I am not sure about the Executive—or the member in charge if a wording. The paragraph needs to be reworded, member‟s bill has got to that stage—as one that is although I am not sure whether Fiona‟s wording likely to be agreed to. It is reasonable for members would be right. who might disagree with those amendments to have the opportunity to lodge counter- The arguments for a technical manuscript amendments. amendment are fairly convincing and straightforward. Technical manuscript The committee has put a lot of emphasis on amendments should be allowed. However, there persuading the Executive that it is appropriate for should be a presumption that policy amendments its amendments to be lodged a day earlier, even should not be allowed, especially—perhaps we though we have not required that. The purpose of should spell this out—if they have already been that is to allow people who might wish to dispute debated either by the full Parliament at stage 2 or those amendments to have the opportunity to in committee at stage 3. lodge a counter-amendment. The Convener: It is the other way round. If the Executive, for whatever reason, lodges its amendments at the last minute, we deny other Mr Macintosh: Yes, exactly. I know. members the opportunity to disagree with the If amendments have been debated and voted Executive by counter-amendment, unless we on, I do not think that they should be allowed as provide for some kind of manuscript amendment manuscript amendments. I am not sure about the to be lodged. The alternative is to require the wording. The paragraph says: Executive, or the member in charge, to lodge their amendments earlier than other people. We have “In applying the test, the convener should begin w ith a presumption in favour of allow ing the amendment to be chosen not to do it that way. moved.” I am quite happy to accept what the Executive I would prefer the presumption to be the other way says—in principle, it always tries to lodge its around. We should be putting hurdles in the way amendments in due time. However, it does not of manuscript amendments, not encouraging always manage that and for the debates that we them. are having this week, the Executive lodged about 30 amendments on the last day. I find the last sentence particularly extraordinary. It says: The principle of allowing debate on amendments requires that, as a reasonable part of power “Where an Executive or member-in-charge amendment sharing, if somebody lodges a substantial has been lodged immediately before the normal deadline, and so is only available in print … agreement should amendment—or any amendment that is likely to normally be given to move any manuscript amendments become part of the law—we allow members who which are lodged directly in response to that Executive or might disagree with the policy the opportunity to member-in-charge amendment.” lodge an amendment to the Executive‟s last- That suggests that Executive amendments that minute amendment. The Executive would accept come in just before the deadline should be treated in principle, although it would no doubt have good differently from anybody else‟s amendments. I do reasons for this, that it had failed to achieve its not agree with that at all. All amendments should targets if it lodged an amendment at the last hour be treated equally. of the last day. If people do not like Executive amendments Fiona Hyslop: We also heard evidence about being put in just before the deadline, they can vote the performance of the Executive in lodging against them, just as they can vote against amendments at stage 3. I do not normally sing the anybody else‟s amendment. I do not think that we praises of the Executive by any means. However, I should necessarily allow people to lodge a was pleasantly surprised to learn that, by and manuscript amendment unless it is a technical large, the Executive had met the timetable for amendment. If the Executive amendment that is lodging amendments—I cannot remember the lodged just before the deadline changes the bill exact number of days in advance—to allow the and somebody has to change it technically to Opposition to see those amendments and to lodge retain the policy intention—a technical rather than amendments before the deadline to counter them, a policy amendment—that should be allowed. A if necessary.

1363 12 FEBRUARY 2002 1364

That system is working well. The committee who are opposed to members‟ bills or Executive must advise members to lodge amendments bills. before the last day precisely to allow the counter- The Convener: I am sorry but if we allow the amendment to be lodged, but not as a manuscript Executive and the lead member to lodge amendment. That is a real test for the Parliament. amendments at the deadline, we are giving the We have a real problem in that if we do not try to edge to the supporters of the bill. At stage 3, we keep hard deadlines, there will be abuse of the are not simply debating policy issues because system. The difference with the bill that we are they have been ventilated at the committee stage. currently debating, which is likely to have a We are finalising the wording; it is the last cut at number of manuscript amendments, is that it is not getting the wording precise and correct. an Executive bill; it is a member‟s bill. That is I am not calling anyone‟s good intentions into perhaps the distinction. Do the rules for the question, but it has been the case that, for Executive lodging amendments apply to any bill, whatever reason, there have been fairly significant whether it is a member‟s bill or an Executive bill? and substantial amendments lodged regularly at Should the deadline of five days in advance for the stage 3 of bills. That often happens after stage 2 lodging of Executive amendments apply only to discussions, when it is agreed that a minister will Executive bills or should it apply to all bills? go away and come back to present something at The Convener: If a member has taken a bill as stage 3. Unless the minister lodges the far as stage 3, we have to assume that an amendment on time so that other people can react amendment brought forward by the supporters of to it or we allow a process for manuscript the bill is likely to be passed. It has to be treated in amendments, Parliament is denied the opportunity the same way as an Executive bill amendment. If, to do anything to change the wording. for whatever reason, an amendment is lodged When we come to the debates taking place this close to the deadline, other members have to have week, we will find that there are some fairly the opportunity to react to that amendment. significant late amendments. It is entirely We should not allow—and I do not think that the reasonable that other members should have the rules do allow it—members to come forward after opportunity to react to such amendments. If the deadline has passed and bring up an entirely amendments are lodged on a Thursday, members new issue that they want to put up for debate. That then have the Friday to consider them and that is is new material and it is not on. Where we are fair enough. allowing people to react to each other‟s However, if the amendments come in late on amendments and accept that as legitimate, we Friday afternoon, I think it is entirely reasonable for have to create a mechanism that requires the Presiding Officers to consider amendments to amendments to be lodged early and gives time for those amendments and, on the Monday, to select counter-amendments to be lodged. them for debate. After that, the chance has gone Alternatively, if a deadline is to be laid down, because members should react to amendments people have to have the opportunity to amend right away. things that were submitted late. If we do not do that, we are failing to operate transparently, failing If somebody comes in on Monday morning and to share power and not giving members the says, “Hey, I have decided that I would like to add opportunity to react to amendments that are likely a whole new extra section to a bill” and it adds an to become law. undebated and unanticipated area of policy, they have bombed out. That is an abuse of the Mr Macintosh: I disagree with that interpretation procedures. However, to allow people to fine-tune of amendments and motions for amendments. By the wording of a proposed law is entirely the time a bill has reached stage 3, most of those reasonable. That is why the mechanism has been issues should have been debated already. produced. Members should therefore have the power to vote for or against an amendment. They will not be 12:15 denied that opportunity by not having the ability to vote on their amendment to that amendment. They Andrew Mylne: It might be useful to respond to a few points that have been raised. On Mr can either accept or reject the amendments that Macintosh‟s concerns about the last sentence in have been lodged at the last minute. paragraph 4.74, that sentence directly reflects We are trying to prevent abuse of the procedure. something that the committee agreed to at a We are not trying to stifle debate or allow the previous meeting. As the convener has already member in charge or the Executive to take pointed out, the earlier paper that the committee advantage of their position. We are trying to make agreed to that led to the standing order changes the procedures fair so that people have a chance specifically included a paragraph suggesting to debate the substantive policy and not, in this guidance along exactly those lines. When the case, giving an edge over the Executive to those committee agreed that paper, it also agreed that

1365 12 FEBRUARY 2002 1366 the procedure of lodging manuscript amendments Executive amendment. That is both a matter of at stage 3 was a way of meeting, by a slightly policy and a legitimate use of the manuscript alternative route, the concern about the earlier amendment route, because the only opportunity to deadline for Executive amendments, in particular lodge such amendments is after the Executive where the Executive or—in the case of a non- amendment has been lodged and therefore after Executive bill—the member in charge lodged an the deadline. important amendment at the last minute, which The Convener: But the member who moves a other members would not see in print until after manuscript amendment is not introducing a new the deadline had expired. The manuscript issue, but responding to a policy amendment that amendment mechanism legitimately gives has been lodged in time. However, that members an opportunity to lodge amendments to amendment has not been lodged in enough time such an amendment or to lodge amendments that to allow members to read and understand it and to are prompted by it. All I have done in paragraph think, “Well, I‟d like to strike out the word „just‟”. 4.74 of the guidance is to reflect something that You have to allow members the opportunity to do the committee has already signed up to. that, otherwise you will frustrate the perfectly One or two members have mentioned a legitimate operation of members dealing with distinction between what can be called policy legislation. amendments and technical amendments. Fiona Hyslop: I want to respond to that point, if Although I understand that distinction—and people I am not too late to do so. Although we want to be can point to clear examples of either sort—it is alert to the distinction between policy amendments nevertheless quite hard to apply. Such a and technical amendments, you have cited distinction is not hard and fast, and there will often examples of amendments that are lodged to be a grey area between the two sorts of achieve consensus and legislation that is amendment. Some amendments are both policy technically and legally competent. For example, and technical amendments, and it will be a matter the Executive might give a commitment to lodge of judgment and controversy to work out which an amendment on a particular issue at stage 3, they might be. As a result, it would be pretty but then its amendment does not go as far as difficult to build such a distinction into the guidance members wish. We then have to reconcile the and apply it. Executive‟s will to go in one direction with That said, we have tried to ensure that such a members‟ will to come together. distinction is recognised in practice. If the The guidance should emphasise consensus and guidance were followed in practice, the green light ensure that we have technically and legally would be given mostly to technical amendments competent legislation. Its explicit presumption and it would be less likely that any new policy should be that we should not accept manuscript amendments would be agreed to. However, as I amendments unless they are trying to achieve said at the beginning, we have tried to avoid being those two objectives. We want guidance. If overly prescriptive. Every circumstance that might members do not understand what they are doing, arise cannot be dictated in guidance, although I not only will we have disruption and unhappy hope that it works out that way in practice. members at stage 3, but we will not have good The Convener: I should point out that the law. majority of manuscript amendments to the The Convener: I do not know how it can be Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill that presumed that manuscript amendments will not be have so far been accepted are technical accepted. If manuscript amendments that are amendments. I cannot think whether anyone has lodged meet the selection criteria, surely they lodged a new policy amendment. should be accepted. Andrew Mylne: That said, some amendments Mr Macintosh: I agree with Fiona Hyslop. It is illustrate the difficulty that I have alluded to. For difficult to discuss the guidance in the context of example, an amendment that introduces a whole the controversial bill that will be debated tomorrow, new section might be lodged on the final day. which has caused worries among members However, if the Executive has lodged such an throughout the chamber, particularly about abuse amendment to fulfil a commitment that was made of the legislative process. I will take that issue no at stage 2, we will consider the issue, come up further, but there are concerns that many of the with something and introduce that at stage 3. The last-minute amendments are oppositional, not Executive might lodge an amendment that goes a consensual. long way to meeting members‟ concerns at stage 2, but does not go as far as some members would The proposal in a manuscript amendment to like. In response, they might want to lodge change a word such as “may” to, for example, amendments that change the word “may” to “shall” “shall” is likely to be in the interests of the chamber and so on in order to beef up and strengthen the and is likely to be, or should be, accepted. In such

1367 12 FEBRUARY 2002 1368 cases, I do not understand why one would want to case last week with half a dozen manuscript single out last-minute manuscript amendments, amendments. whether they are from the Executive or the I am happy for the wording of the guidance to member in charge. All amendments should be reflect the principle that all amendments are the treated equally. An amendment by a member who same. What we call the amendments or where opposes a bill should be treated the same as a they come from is not important. However, it is member-in-charge amendment. important that an amendment that is lodged late In the interests of consensus, if a member finds can be counter-amended—without departing from an amendment‟s wording unacceptable, but does the general policy area—to allow a debate on the not have time to lodge a counter-amendment that amendment the following week. It is also important would make the amendment acceptable, they that no member derives an advantage from should be able to lodge a manuscript amendment lodging an amendment a minute before the without that being discriminated against. A deadline that would deliberately or accidentally member‟s amendment that opposes an Executive deprive other members of the opportunity to press amendment or a member-in-charge‟s amendment their issue the following week. It is important to should not be considered more favourably than protect members‟ right to react to other members‟ other members‟ amendments. All amendments amendments. should be treated equally. Andrew Mylne: I have a couple of brief points Fiona Hyslop‟s more important point was that on what the convener said about the last sentence interpreting the reason for lodging a manuscript of paragraph 4.74. As I said, the wording was amendment is a matter of discretion—the designed to reflect the committee‟s earlier guidance notes are not rules. However, I trust the discussion and the fact that it wished to distinguish Presiding Officers—I am sitting next to one—to Executive and member-in-charge amendments exercise their discretion properly. from others. The sentence attempts to say that, among the various factors that are taken into The Convener: We should not have a debate account in deciding whether a manuscript about whether the amendments that were lodged amendment should be allowed to be moved, there on Thursday for Friday‟s business bulletin were might be a presumption in favour of a manuscript less or more legitimate than the amendments that amendment that is in response to an Executive or were lodged on Friday afternoon for Monday‟s member-in-charge amendment that was lodged bulletin. Mr Macintosh might want to consider the immediately before the normal deadline. That matter carefully and come to his conclusions. It is does not rule out the possibility of an amendment dangerous to consider specific bills and activities. of a similar sort that is in response to a non- I accept that the Executive is less likely to seek Executive amendment being allowed through, if it to change by counter-amendment an amendment is seen as legitimate in the circumstances. The that is lodged by a back bencher or an Opposition sentence makes a bit of a special case, but it spokesman, but it is valid to suggest that one can certainly does not rule out the other situation to imagine that happening and so it is reasonable to which Mr Macintosh referred. say that all amendments should be treated the The Convener: But you could amend the same. I would have thought that if I were to lodge wording to respond to the concern that the an amendment at 3.52 pm on a Friday the committee has raised. suggested procedure would allow the Executive to decide that it would support the amendment, Andrew Mylne: I can look at it again. subject to an amendment on a point of detail. In Fiona Hyslop: I have a suggestion. A number of effect, that would be a counter-amendment, but concerns have been raised about the wording of that is not the term that we have used. In such a the guidance. Things are happening as we speak. case, my late amendment would be treated We have another stage 3 debate on Thursday. similarly to the Executive‟s amendment. The issue is whether we rush to agree the wording Executive and member-in-charge amendments of the guidance, bearing in mind the fact that a have been highlighted because the Procedures number of us have concerns, or whether we allow Committee discussed the matter several times on time for reflection and redrafting the paragraph, the understanding that greater weight is attached bearing in mind the fact that the points that have to an Executive amendment. Opposition been discussed will be communicated to the amendments are often lodged so that an issue can Presiding Officers in the next few days, when they be debated; it is accepted that the amendment will will be considering manuscript amendments for be knocked down. One can imagine the Executive stage 3 debates. being largely in favour of an Opposition The Convener: There is no requirement to amendment or an amendment from a member of a approve the changes today. The selection of party that is in the Executive, but wanting to amendments for the Protection of Wild Mammals change the amendment‟s wording. That was the

1369 12 FEBRUARY 2002 1370

(Scotland) Bill has already taken place. The better to examine examples that have arisen, selection for the Water Industry (Scotland) Bill will rather than look at this week‟s examples—which take place later today. I do not think that the might generate undue emotion—or imaginary Presiding Officer would want to apply different ones. We are better to wait. criteria to the Water Industry (Scotland) Bill from those that were applied to the Protection of Wild 12:30 Mammals (Scotland) Bill, or indeed the Susan Deacon: There may be a halfway house Community Care and Health (Scotland) Bill last between what Ken Macintosh and Andrew Mylne week. We are not talking about changing have said. I appreciate the risk of considering procedures; we are talking about how we frame guidance in relation to particular examples, the guidance. I agree that it is important that we because each case is different, but none of us get that right. We need to ask Andrew Mylne to wants to agree guidelines that are not capable of reflect on the Official Report of this discussion and being applied effectively. the points that have been made, and to find ways Some of the discussion has been a wee bit to reword the paragraphs so that they convey abstract. The objective we all share is to pass more precisely the guidance that the committee good law. I am more persuaded by the convener‟s wishes the Presiding Officers to apply. arguments about what would enable us to pass Mr Macintosh: I have one more suggestion. As good law, but I want to be persuaded that any I said, it is difficult to think today without being revision to the text will enable the guidance to be conscious of the forthcoming debates. Would it be applied effectively in a range of different situations possible, when we next examine the issue or to ensure that we put the most effective legislation possibly before, to be given examples of possible on the statute book. That is our manuscript amendments that were lodged and overwhelming aim. Our aim is not always to create which were and were not accepted? That may consensus, because consensus is not always help us to take a more balanced view on whether achievable. Nor is it to be for or against what the the guidance is right. Executive or the member in charge of a bill has done. It is to ensure that legislation is effective. Andrew Mylne: If the committee is not happy with the wording, I am more than happy to adjust it I do not want to prolong the discussion further— in line with the concerns that have been raised, to we have been at it long enough—but, rather than the extent that I can reconcile the different views bring along specific examples, can everything that members have expressed. With respect, I am possible be done to test the application of the not entirely sure that examples would be helpful. guidance? There is no point in the committee In such situations, we always try to produce doing something in good faith that we find, further guidance that is suitable for the generality and down the track, has the opposite effect when it is which is not dictated by one or other particular applied to a live piece of legislation. circumstance, because if guidance or procedures The Convener: I am quite certain that if the are based on a particular case, something is likely Presiding Officers feel at any stage that they are to result that does not work in other cases. There having difficulty applying the procedures or would be something slightly problematic about interpreting the guidance they will invite the focusing on specific examples, which would tend committee to revisit the matter at an early stage. to politicise a discussion that needs to be fairly general. Providing examples might distort the Andrew Mylne: I have one final point of issue. guidance. As far as the standing orders—which state the formal position—are concerned, it is Mr Macintosh: Would not it be possible to simply for Presiding Officers or conveners to provide several examples? I did not mean one decide by applying the short and simple test that is example; I meant perhaps a dozen examples. If set out. Obviously, they will try to follow any we had a dozen examples from a range of bills guidance that is published, but the guidance is not that covered several situations we could see a straitjacket. Even if the guidance is not perfect, it whether the guidance works. will not stop them making sensible decisions in The Convener: That would be difficult at this particular cases by applying the test that is in the stage. Andrew Mylne said at the beginning that we rules. should review the agreed guidance after a number The Convener: Do we agree to reconsider the of stage 3 debates. It would be better to examine wording of that part of the guidance at a the issues and see how the rules were applied subsequent meeting? with a fair degree of retrospect. Obviously if we wish subsequently to revise the guidance or the Members indicated agreement. standing orders, it is open to us to do so, but it is The Convener: I thank members for their important to see how the new procedures work attendance and contributions. before we rush to judgment on them. It might be Meeting closed at 12:32.

Members who would like a printed copy of the Official Report to be forwarded to them should give notice at the Document Supply Centre.

No proofs of the Official Report can be supplied. Members who want to suggest corrections for the archive edition should mark them clearly in the daily edition, and send it to the Official Report, 375 High Street, Edinburgh EH99 1SP. Suggested corrections in any other form cannot be accepted.

The deadline for corrections to this edition is:

Tuesday 19 February 2002

Members who want reprints of their speeches (within one month of the date of publication) may obtain request forms and further details from the Central Distribution Office, the Document Supply Centre or the Official Report.

PRICES AND SUBSCRIPTION RATES

DAILY EDITIONS

Single copies: £5 Meetings of the Parliament annual subscriptions: £350.00

The archive edition of the Official Report of meetings of the Parliament, written answers and public meetings of committees w ill be published on CD-ROM.

WHAT‟S HAPPENING IN THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT, compiled by the Scottish Parliament Information Centre, contains details of past and forthcoming business and of the work of committees and gives general information on legislation and other parliamentary activity.

Single copies: £3.75 Special issue price: £5 Annual subscriptions: £150.00

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS w eekly compilation

Single copies: £3.75 Annual subscriptions: £150.00

Standing orders will be accepted at the Document Supply Centre.

Published in Edinburgh by The Stationery Off ice Limited and available f rom:

The Stationery Office Bookshop The Stationery Office Scottish Parliament Documentation The Scottish Parliament Shop 71 Lothian Road Helpline may be able to assist with additional information George IV Bridge Edinburgh EH3 9AZ on publications of or about the Scottish Parliament, EH99 1SP 0131 228 4181 Fax 0131 622 7017 their availability and cost: Telephone orders 0131 348 5412

The Stationery Office Bookshops at: Telephone orders and inquiries 123 Kingsway, London WC2B 6PQ [email protected] Tel 020 7242 6393 Fax 020 7242 6394 0870 606 5566 68-69 Bull Street, Bir mingham B4 6AD www.scottish.parliament.uk Tel 0121 236 9696 Fax 0121 236 9699 Fax orders 33 Wine Street, Bristol BS1 2BQ Tel 01179 264306 Fax 01179 294515 0870 606 5588 9-21 Princess Street, Manchester M60 8AS Accredited Agents Tel 0161 834 7201 Fax 0161 833 0634 16 Arthur Street, Belfast BT1 4GD (see Yellow Pages) Tel 028 9023 8451 Fax 028 9023 5401 The Stationer y Office Oriel Bookshop, and through good booksellers 18-19 High Street, Car diff CF12BZ

Tel 029 2039 5548 Fax 029 2038 4347

Printed in Scotland by The Stationery Office Limited ISBN 0 338 000003 ISSN 1467-0178